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

Commentary on the Equation of Time



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 19th 11, 02:31 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Commentary on the Equation of Time

This commentary is long overdue,although I do not address those who
can't interpret the daily rotation of the Earth directly from a
temperature legend and especially the principle of 1461 rotations
across 4 orbital circuits it leaves the road clear to consider what
the Equation does .

The Equation of Time is simply the balance between the variations in a
full natural noon cycle and the steady 24 hour cycle,it only really
comes into play with the development of clocks and,in tandem with the
calendar cycle,adjusts the observation of natural noon to 24 hour
clock noon hence AM and PM designations.

The Equation of Time cannot be explained by planetary dynamics so
worthless junk like the analemma are best left with those who know no
better and although the Equation of Time does indicate the
relationship between steady daily rotation to the Sun and the unequal
orbital turning to the Sun,its format excludes the possibility of
expressing the accurate relationship between daily and orbital
motions.

The easiest way to frame the Equation of Time is to put it in context
of the calendar cycle and the rotations in that cycle insofar as it is
easier to grasp what the Equation of Time is from the beginning of Mar
rather than the civil year of January 1st.For any given year there are
365 rotations to the Sun with the additional rotation of Feb 29 th
closing out 4 orbital circuits.As the Equation of Time works off the
appearance of natural noon,it was necessary to create a table for the
leap year,John Harrison created one but I am unable to find it on the
internet.

The Equation of Time,in whatever set of tables it is given (Huygen's
determination of natural noon is accompanied by entirely subtraction
values while others somethings add and sometime subtract) represent
the rate of change of the orbital motion of the Earth against the
steady rotation and while most years have 365 rotations and 1 year has
366 rotations,this is why the Equation of Time doesn't directly
explain daily and orbital dynamics.

The Royal Society was once a clearinghouse for information that could
be handled in a working way but now it is left to the individual on
the Usenet or internet to sort through the issues,I have already
spoken at length about the toxic strain of empiricism and its
inability to grasp basic astronomical facts and the precepts of the
Equation of Time is one of them.

So,everyone can check immediately where they stand,that is one of the
benefits of referencing the number of rotations to 1 orbital circuit
of the Earth,anyone who accepts 365 1/4 rotations can go on to
investigating the Equation of Time,anyone who follows 366 1/4
rotations and the analemma junk or similar proposals need not bother.



Ads
  #2  
Old June 19th 11, 03:26 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,640
Default Commentary on the Equation of Time

On Jun 19, 7:31*am, oriel36 wrote:

The Equation of Time cannot be explained by planetary dynamics


The Equation of Time,in whatever set of tables it is given (Huygen's
determination of natural noon is accompanied by entirely subtraction
values while others somethings add and sometime subtract) represent
the rate of change of the orbital motion of the Earth against the
steady rotation and while most years have 365 rotations and 1 year has
366 rotations,this is why the Equation of Time doesn't directly
explain daily and orbital dynamics.


Eppur...

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

John Savard
  #3  
Old June 19th 11, 04:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,640
Default Commentary on the Equation of Time

On Jun 19, 7:31*am, oriel36 wrote:

The Equation of Time cannot be explained by planetary dynamics


Eppur...

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

John Savard
  #4  
Old June 19th 11, 10:05 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
R Downing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Commentary on the Equation of Time

On 06/19/2011 06:31 AM, oriel36 wrote:
This commentary is long overdue,although I do not address those who
can't interpret the daily rotation of the Earth directly from a
temperature legend and especially the principle of 1461 rotations
across 4 orbital circuits it leaves the road clear to consider what
the Equation does .

The Equation of Time is simply the balance between the variations in a
full natural noon cycle and the steady 24 hour cycle,it only really
comes into play with the development of clocks and,in tandem with the
calendar cycle,adjusts the observation of natural noon to 24 hour
clock noon hence AM and PM designations.

The Equation of Time cannot be explained by planetary dynamics so
worthless junk like the analemma are best left with those who know no
better and although the Equation of Time does indicate the
relationship between steady daily rotation to the Sun and the unequal
orbital turning to the Sun,its format excludes the possibility of
expressing the accurate relationship between daily and orbital
motions.

The easiest way to frame the Equation of Time is to put it in context
of the calendar cycle and the rotations in that cycle insofar as it is
easier to grasp what the Equation of Time is from the beginning of Mar
rather than the civil year of January 1st.For any given year there are
365 rotations to the Sun with the additional rotation of Feb 29 th
closing out 4 orbital circuits.As the Equation of Time works off the
appearance of natural noon,it was necessary to create a table for the
leap year,John Harrison created one but I am unable to find it on the
internet.

The Equation of Time,in whatever set of tables it is given (Huygen's
determination of natural noon is accompanied by entirely subtraction
values while others somethings add and sometime subtract) represent
the rate of change of the orbital motion of the Earth against the
steady rotation and while most years have 365 rotations and 1 year has
366 rotations,this is why the Equation of Time doesn't directly
explain daily and orbital dynamics.

The Royal Society was once a clearinghouse for information that could
be handled in a working way but now it is left to the individual on
the Usenet or internet to sort through the issues,I have already
spoken at length about the toxic strain of empiricism and its
inability to grasp basic astronomical facts and the precepts of the
Equation of Time is one of them.

So,everyone can check immediately where they stand,that is one of the
benefits of referencing the number of rotations to 1 orbital circuit
of the Earth,anyone who accepts 365 1/4 rotations can go on to
investigating the Equation of Time,anyone who follows 366 1/4
rotations and the analemma junk or similar proposals need not bother.



Your equation is spectacularly lacking in symbology nor notation.
  #5  
Old June 19th 11, 10:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Commentary on the Equation of Time

On Jun 19, 11:05*pm, R Downing wrote:
On 06/19/2011 06:31 AM, oriel36 wrote:







This commentary is long overdue,although I do not address those who
can't interpret the daily rotation of the Earth directly from a
temperature legend and especially the principle of 1461 rotations
across 4 orbital circuits it leaves the road clear to consider what
the Equation does .


The Equation of Time is simply the balance between the variations in a
full natural noon cycle and the steady 24 hour cycle,it only really
comes into play with the development of clocks and,in tandem with the
calendar cycle,adjusts the observation of natural noon to 24 hour
clock noon hence AM and PM designations.


The Equation of Time cannot be explained by planetary dynamics so
worthless junk like the analemma are best left with those who know no
better and although the Equation of Time does indicate the
relationship between steady daily rotation to the Sun and the unequal
orbital turning to the Sun,its format excludes the possibility of
expressing the accurate relationship between daily and orbital
motions.


The easiest way to frame the Equation of Time is to put it in context
of the calendar cycle and the rotations in that cycle insofar as it is
easier to grasp what the Equation of Time is from the beginning of Mar
rather than the civil year of January 1st.For any given year there are
365 rotations to the Sun with the additional rotation of Feb 29 th
closing out 4 orbital circuits.As the Equation of Time works off the
appearance of natural noon,it was necessary to create a table for the
leap year,John Harrison created one but I am unable to find it on the
internet.


The Equation of Time,in whatever set of tables it is given (Huygen's
determination of natural noon is accompanied by entirely subtraction
values while others somethings add and sometime subtract) represent
the rate of change of the orbital motion of the Earth against the
steady rotation and while most years have 365 rotations and 1 year has
366 rotations,this is why the Equation of Time doesn't directly
explain daily and orbital dynamics.


The Royal Society was once a clearinghouse for information that could
be handled in a working way but now it is left to the individual on
the Usenet or internet to sort through the issues,I have already
spoken at length about the toxic strain of empiricism and its
inability to grasp basic astronomical facts and the precepts of the
Equation of Time is one of them.


So,everyone can check immediately where they stand,that is one of the
benefits of referencing the number of rotations to 1 orbital circuit
of the Earth,anyone who accepts 365 1/4 rotations can go on to
investigating the Equation of Time,anyone who follows 366 1/4
rotations and the analemma junk or similar proposals need not bother.


Your equation is spectacularly lacking in symbology nor notation.


Son,if you can interpret the daily rotation out of a temperature
legend and daily temperature fluctuations,you might even stand a
chance of relating the natural noon cycle to the 24 hour cycle so what
you do is interpret these posts as addressed who could become
astronomers rather than nuisance empiricists.

So disappear back into oblivion like the rest,you can't exist where
talent is required but I am certain there are people with that
competitive spirit who can and they are out there.

You can't discuss the Equation of Time in any shape or form with
people who imagine 366 1/4 rotations in an orbital circuit and the
toxic strain of empiricism inherited from Newton attempts to force
such a mindnumbingly stupid proportion between daily rotations and an
orbital circuit.To comprehend the Equation of Time properly requires
the expansion out to 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits.



 




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
Equation of Time Les Desser UK Astronomy 15 April 29th 08 01:22 PM
A contemporary look at the Equation of Time oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 4 August 6th 06 11:04 AM
Equation of Time causes oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 1 May 23rd 06 05:18 AM
Newton's comment on the Equation of Time [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 June 30th 05 12:05 PM
Equation of time: need the equation itself [email protected] Misc 1 March 10th 05 06:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.