A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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 Equation of Time(keeping)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 21st 17, 06:18 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

The issue of Huygens and the attempt to fit the timekeeping facility into the natural orbital cycle surfaced later when the Equation of Timekeeping was loaded with attributes that it doesn't have -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

People shouldn't be scared or just give up the pretense that Newton ill-considered version of the Equation of Timekeeping is anything other than jumbled up notion whereas the timekeeping facility responsible for the average 24 hour day has both engineering and astronomical facets.

That little detour over, back to the topic in hand.
Ads
  #12  
Old November 21st 17, 09:11 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 9:05:46 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/11/2017 10:34, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
Gerald Kelleher wrote:

The basic experiment involves either a sand or water clock. The period of one
noon to the next full cycle would generate different volumes of water and
sand reflecting the variation in the total length of each individual cycle .


Sand and water clocks are too inaccurate to detect the variation in
duration from one noon to the next.


Actually they were just about good enough to do it a long time ago.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...lack_Sea_Coast


Regards,
Martin Brown


The Equation of time is a global observation hence there is no declination component or 'tilt' involved. An observation of noon along the entire length of any given longitude meridian where the Sun becomes visible each cycle (sunrise/sunset) will generate the same Equation of Time correction.

Many of these websites mix up the variable annual motion of the Sun in declination with the variable total length of the natural noon cycle and therefore will never come to the right conclusion. The greatest change in declination is centered around the Equinoxes but this slows until it stops entirely at the Solstices. This variation in declination feature has nothing whatsoever to do with the Equation of Time or any hemispherical arc of the Sun.

The Equation of Time, before any other perspective is applied, isolates daily rotation as a constant by assumption but not by direct observation. It is unlikely that many could grasp the importance of this fact but it is the key to understanding everything else including why the clockwork solar system is a chain on astronomy and not a treasure.

  #13  
Old November 23rd 17, 12:15 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

In Huygens treatise he stresses the period between sunrise and sunset as a mean to determine noon . In dynamical terms it means the observer exits the circle of illumination at sunrise,enters it at sunset with natural noon being the midpoint regardless of seasonal differences.

Modern values do not take this into account with differences in natural noon showing variations when this simply isn't possible -

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/london


Huygens noted sunrise, then sunset and divided the time by two, he then added the resulting amount to sunrise in order to determine noon insofar as observer is equidistant to sunrise and sunset from the noon determination. Even allowing for DST, the value for Sydney should be the same as London in being anchored around natural noon or around 12 noon -

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/aust...th=9&year=2017

Doubt if anyone else feels comfortable looking at the physical considerations involved but these are both accurate and true. It also has a huge bearing on how astronomy proceeds in terms of dynamical cause and effect, solar system reckoning and many other things.
  #14  
Old November 29th 17, 08:28 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

It should be apparent what the core references are for the 24 hour day, the equal hours, minutes and seconds along with the Latitude/Longitude system.

It is also apparent what went wrong as the clockwork solar system proponents tried to bypass the Sun and its effects for what they thought was 'pure' rotation by appealing to stellar circumpolar motion. It is from this point that things spiraled downwards and eventually the most dismal or wretched ideology in astronomical and terrestrial science history became accepted -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

It is hard to know what a person must be to deal with these issues but part engineer, part astronomer or archaeologist, climate researcher, geologist comprise different facets of all this but first and foremost a person must have the most human of experiences as they watch the Sun come into view each day and know what it means -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8



  #15  
Old November 30th 17, 03:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

It is because the Equation of Timekeeping sits inside the calendar framework, it points to the fact that after the 4 year cycle, the same set of values are not replicated even though the variations are minor. The Precession of the Equinoxes is a more refined version of the leap day correction as the Earth does not return exactly to the same orbital position from March 1st one year to February 29th four years later hence the orbital speed is slightly different when the new cycle begins.
  #16  
Old December 1st 17, 09:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:38:02 PM UTC, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
It is because the Equation of Timekeeping sits inside the calendar framework, it points to the fact that after the 4 year cycle, the same set of values are not replicated even though the variations are minor. The Precession of the Equinoxes is a more refined version of the leap day correction as the Earth does not return exactly to the same orbital position from March 1st one year to February 29th four years later hence the orbital speed is slightly different when the new cycle begins.


This is, of course, complete ********. Gerald has no idea what the Precession of the Equinox is, and ignores all attempts to explain it to him.
  #18  
Old December 1st 17, 08:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

There is something cool about knowing that the theorists never really got to grips with the Equation of Timekeeping in context of Newton's absolute/relative time description and especially in an attempt to make a geocentric view transform directly into a heliocentric one -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 Signs,or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy" Huygens framework for the EoT

Ultimately this error found its way into the so-called inverse square law which tries to transform the idea of universal attraction into a theory of gravity -

"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.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

To be fair, so many have had their minds rotted out by early 20th century relativity which jettisons any pretense to solar system research that effectively what Huygens or Newton say as perspectives are meaningless nevertheless I am aware of exactly why the earlier theories are entirely disruptive while the 20th century attempts are basically voodoo and wishful thinking.



  #19  
Old December 2nd 17, 02:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,596
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:44:49 AM UTC-8, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
There is something cool about knowing that the theorists never really got to grips with the Equation of Timekeeping in context of Newton's absolute/relative time description and especially in an attempt to make a geocentric view transform directly into a heliocentric one -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 Signs,or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy" Huygens framework for the EoT

Ultimately this error found its way into the so-called inverse square law which tries to transform the idea of universal attraction into a theory of gravity -

"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.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

To be fair, so many have had their minds rotted out by early 20th century relativity which jettisons any pretense to solar system research that effectively what Huygens or Newton say as perspectives are meaningless nevertheless I am aware of exactly why the earlier theories are entirely disruptive while the 20th century attempts are basically voodoo and wishful thinking.


The only error is your own interpretation of what Newton had to say...
  #20  
Old December 2nd 17, 05:22 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default The Equation of Time(keeping)

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 1:43:01 AM UTC, palsing wrote:

The only error is your own interpretation of what Newton had to say...


Newton tried his hand at the Equation of Time(keeping) by calling the components absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

You should be delighted to finally discover what Newton was muttering about but having your brains rotted by early 20th century relativity built on chanting voodoo about Newton's absolute/relative time is not helpful. All you know is that this newsgroup is now a blank sheet that theorists and celestial sphere enthusiasts like yourself avoid.

 




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
Commentary on the Equation of Time oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 4 June 19th 11 10:16 PM
Equation of Time Les Desser UK Astronomy 15 April 29th 08 01:22 PM
Equation of Time causes oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 1 May 23rd 06 05:18 AM
Equation of time: need the equation itself [email protected] Misc 1 March 10th 05 06:02 AM
Oh, Oh!, One of Alien Darla's Level Six Clues To Nightbat About Advanced Method of Time Keeping May Be Coming True Ollie Misc 17 February 2nd 04 04:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.