|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm Figure 3 shows an alignment _exactly_ 24 hours after that in figure 1. Both alignments are _precisely_ the natural noon for that day. To achieve that, I had to use one of four particular days in the year but we can use the fact that the rotation of the Earth is constant to apply any conclusion to other days via the EoT since it deals with the variation of the natural day. So have you any complaints about those figures or can you agree that: a) Figure 1 shows the noon alignment on the 3rd Nov. b) Figure 3 shows the noon alignment on the 4th Nov. c) The Sun appears due south at 11:43:34 on both days. d) The figures are separated by exactly 24 hours. If you disagree, please say specifically what you think the error is. If not, please say you agree and we can move on. George I am flying out tommorrow ... Why did that stop you saying whether you agree with the diagrams? Can't you tell if they show what I say they show or not? Gerald, I have some time ago come to the conclusion that you are a charlatan. The impression I get is that you have no knowledge of astronomy whatsoever. You have read lots but put none of it into practice, and your "I am flying out tomorrow" and "I'm taking a break from this" and similar comments always come at the point when you can no longer cover up the fact that you are incapable of doing even the simplest astronomical calculations. Your views on Newton are based on a complete lack of practical experience and use only guesswork in determining his meaning. You know the diagrams I have drawn will lead to a question that requires you to use Kepler's Second Law and I don't think you can handle that. In fact I don't think you can even use Kepler's First Law which you will probably have to solve as a precursor. You would have the opportunity to prove me wrong by answering that question, but you know you are not capable of doing so and your continuing prevarication is clearly just your way of avoiding being exposed. snip irrelevant comments on ship's logs What you snipped was the heritage of your own countrymen,even a common thief has pride in the history of his nation so where does that leave you with your worthless relativistic concepts.What do I care what you say,all I have ever done was celebrate the greatness of humanity and the fact that really clever men left a legacy of an exquisite system of geometry,astronomy and invention until your mentor screwed it up using a watch,a train and civil time !!!!. ...You will of course snip what you need to ... I will continue to snip your comments where they are unrelated to the present topic since you are just trying to change the subject from one you cannot handle. There is not one single thread in any of the sci.forums that is more important than this one ... Then why are you continually trying to prevent any progress on it and instead switch to some other topic, which you will again drop as soon as anyone asks you a question that requires you to display some working familiarity with astronomy? The impression you give everyone is that you have no such knowledge. You could do something about that by answering my questions, the choice is yours. George Choice,what choice ,there is no choice in accepting the EoT as the difference between absolute time and relative time,you have nobody but yourself to blame for chasing relativistic rainbows,the sort of wishful thinking that turns men into clowns.I do astronomy as part of my faith as a Christian and it would be impossible to do it otherwise,I never cursed the inspiration of men and especially our ancestors,you did and still do.It turns out that there is no worse curse than that,not many have the chance or the ability to work to correct things and there is always room for those who know no better but I assure you that you will be repaid in full,you see it has nothing to do with knowledge it all has to do with the connection between the Infinite and the definite,we Christians call it the Eternal and the temporal. Whatever victory you gain is not at my expense,it is always at the heart of a civilisation to improve or refine the work of those who left us something to marvel at,the stuff you peddle are cheap imaging tricks wrapped up in linguistic fireworks,an intellectual holocaust that casts men into dour beings,even those who never came across your concepts know there is something wrong but do not know where to trace the problem to its source. It is here George,the Equation of Time,the lovely linkage between geometry and astronomy.No matter how hard you try to insult another it does'nt really matter,there is no curse worse than the one you place upon yourself and subsequently curse me all you will.That you adhere to a concept which severs the connection between what some know as God,Infinite,Absolute (or whatever terms civilisation or religion have framed this) and present it as a human achievement where men can,by some physical effort,alter temporal time was always the aim of the living dead. Go back to your relativistic cave and discuss frames of reference,warped space or whatever the hell is the latest,greatest thing with those who know no better,the chance to develop something new is come and gone and that is that. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... I am flying out tommorrow ... Why did that stop you saying whether you agree with the diagrams? Can't you tell if they show what I say they show or not? snip my stuff snip irrelevant comments on ship's logs What you snipped was the heritage of your own countrymen, I asked you a question that needed a yes/no answer, did you agree with the figures. Instead you launched into a load of crap about when navigators updated their clocks that had no bearing on the question at all. It was just a last desperate attempt to change the subject yet again. We are past that Gerald. snip irrelevant comments on ship's logs What you snipped was the heritage of your own countrymen,even a common thief has pride in the history of his nation so where does that leave you with your worthless relativistic concepts.What do I care what you say,all I have ever done was celebrate the greatness of humanity and the fact that really clever men left a legacy of an exquisite system of geometry,astronomy and invention All you have done Gerald is make a simple mistake in the mechanics of rotation that means the orbit of the Earth is no longer an ellipse but has to be shaped like an extended analemma at one side of the Sun. With your values, the Earth no longer goes round the Sun and Kepler's First Law is rubbish, or is it a mistake?. until your mentor screwed it up using a watch,a train and civil time !!!!. You know relativity never comes into it in any way whatsoever and trying to use it as a smoke-screen will never work in this group, your errors are much too obvious. Claiming tilt doesn't play a part in the EoT was better, a few people fell for that one, but in the end it is again just a diversion from your real agenda and you wil always be caught in the same dilemma, if you deflect people from pointing out the erros in your real claim using that decoy, you can never make any progress towards acceptance of your ideas because nobody is talking about them. snip my stuff Choice,what choice ,there is no choice in accepting the EoT as the difference between absolute time and relative time,you have nobody but yourself to blame for chasing relativistic rainbows,the sort of wishful thinking that turns men into clowns.I do astronomy as part of my faith as a Christian and it would be impossible to do it otherwise,I never cursed the inspiration of men and especially our ancestors,you did and still do.It turns out that there is no worse curse than that,not many have the chance or the ability to work to correct things and there is always room for those who know no better but I assure you that you will be repaid in full,you see it has nothing to do with knowledge it all has to do with the connection between the Infinite and the definite,we Christians call it the Eternal and the temporal. And that is the _real_ reason you want to discard Copernicus and put the Earth back at the centre with the Sun and stars orbiting around it, humanity has to be at the centre of the universe for you. Whatever victory you gain is not at my expense,it is always at the heart of a civilisation to improve or refine the work of those who left us something to marvel at,the stuff you peddle are cheap imaging tricks wrapped up in linguistic fireworks,an intellectual holocaust that casts men into dour beings,even those who never came across your concepts know there is something wrong but do not know where to trace the problem to its source. It is here George,the Equation of Time,the lovely linkage between geometry and astronomy.No matter how hard you try to insult another it does'nt really matter,there is no curse worse than the one you place upon yourself and subsequently curse me all you will.That you adhere to a concept which severs the connection between what some know as God,Infinite,Absolute (or whatever terms civilisation or religion have framed this) and present it as a human achievement where men can,by some physical effort,alter temporal time was always the aim of the living dead. I adhere to Copernicus and Kepler's Laws. Your attempt to discard them is well hidden but you cannot beat the maths. As long as people notice that each star sets about 4 minutes earlier each night, your religious fantasies will be ignored. http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second): [a] 24 hours exactly [b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds [c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year [d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each [e] something else (state your value) _____________ How many times did you refuse to answer that question? You knew the answer was (b) all along but it blows your screwy claims out of the water in an instant so you just couldn't admit it, even to yourself, could you. If you want to continue in this group, Gerald, be prepared to be challenged to face reality every time. George |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... I am flying out tommorrow ... Why did that stop you saying whether you agree with the diagrams? Can't you tell if they show what I say they show or not? snip my stuff snip irrelevant comments on ship's logs What you snipped was the heritage of your own countrymen, I asked you a question that needed a yes/no answer, did you agree with the figures. Instead you launched into a load of crap about when navigators updated their clocks that had no bearing on the question at all. It was just a last desperate attempt to change the subject yet again. We are past that Gerald. snip irrelevant comments on ship's logs What you snipped was the heritage of your own countrymen,even a common thief has pride in the history of his nation so where does that leave you with your worthless relativistic concepts.What do I care what you say,all I have ever done was celebrate the greatness of humanity and the fact that really clever men left a legacy of an exquisite system of geometry,astronomy and invention All you have done Gerald is make a simple mistake in the mechanics of rotation that means the orbit of the Earth is no longer an ellipse but has to be shaped like an extended analemma at one side of the Sun. With your values, the Earth no longer goes round the Sun and Kepler's First Law is rubbish, or is it a mistake?. until your mentor screwed it up using a watch,a train and civil time !!!!. You know relativity never comes into it in any way whatsoever and trying to use it as a smoke-screen will never work in this group, your errors are much too obvious. Claiming tilt doesn't play a part in the EoT was better, a few people fell for that one, but in the end it is again just a diversion from your real agenda and you wil always be caught in the same dilemma, if you deflect people from pointing out the erros in your real claim using that decoy, you can never make any progress towards acceptance of your ideas because nobody is talking about them. snip my stuff Choice,what choice ,there is no choice in accepting the EoT as the difference between absolute time and relative time,you have nobody but yourself to blame for chasing relativistic rainbows,the sort of wishful thinking that turns men into clowns.I do astronomy as part of my faith as a Christian and it would be impossible to do it otherwise,I never cursed the inspiration of men and especially our ancestors,you did and still do.It turns out that there is no worse curse than that,not many have the chance or the ability to work to correct things and there is always room for those who know no better but I assure you that you will be repaid in full,you see it has nothing to do with knowledge it all has to do with the connection between the Infinite and the definite,we Christians call it the Eternal and the temporal. And that is the _real_ reason you want to discard Copernicus and put the Earth back at the centre with the Sun and stars orbiting around it, humanity has to be at the centre of the universe for you. Whatever victory you gain is not at my expense,it is always at the heart of a civilisation to improve or refine the work of those who left us something to marvel at,the stuff you peddle are cheap imaging tricks wrapped up in linguistic fireworks,an intellectual holocaust that casts men into dour beings,even those who never came across your concepts know there is something wrong but do not know where to trace the problem to its source. It is here George,the Equation of Time,the lovely linkage between geometry and astronomy.No matter how hard you try to insult another it does'nt really matter,there is no curse worse than the one you place upon yourself and subsequently curse me all you will.That you adhere to a concept which severs the connection between what some know as God,Infinite,Absolute (or whatever terms civilisation or religion have framed this) and present it as a human achievement where men can,by some physical effort,alter temporal time was always the aim of the living dead. I adhere to Copernicus and Kepler's Laws. Your attempt to discard them is well hidden but you cannot beat the maths. As long as people notice that each star sets about 4 minutes earlier each night, your religious fantasies will be ignored. http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second): [a] 24 hours exactly [b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds [c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year [d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each [e] something else (state your value) _____________ How many times did you refuse to answer that question? You knew the answer was (b) all along but it blows your screwy claims out of the water in an instant so you just couldn't admit it, even to yourself, could you. If you want to continue in this group, Gerald, be prepared to be challenged to face reality every time. George All of us face Reality George,it is a fundamental tenet of my Christian faith. John 12 25 "(1) He who loves his life loses it, and he who (2) hates his life in this world will keep it to life Eternal. The only thing to hate is the shortness of temporal life and the celebration of all that is good in humanity,the dourness of knowledge is all you have and the last few posts you do what is natural to your beliefs,I know it is punishment in itself for you adhere to a belief that man has some power over time but this is a tyranny based on the most silly of premises -a clock,a train and civil time. There is always an excuse for those who know no better and they represent almost all of the posts here but then there is the living dead like you and Old Man,an enemy of Christianity and all those other wonderful beliefs.You betray the heritage of your own countrymen and the practicality of the EoT,you despise Newton who spared you from calling geocentric observations 'illusions' by calling it relative space. Behind all your posts is that rotten backdrop,you took your chances that it would eventually tend towards these type of posts even though the broad sweep of history was brought to bear on this thread and lovingly so,I can do no more than make the effort and in this I can find more shame in myself for not doing better. I am far more a Christian than you know,my heritage recognises that what you call empirical science is just warmed over gnosticism,a cult that nearly wiped out Christianity in its infancy.You introduce the pale imitation of gnosticism through the once noble tradition of astronomy and spend all of your time testing others to see what you can away with,too self-impressed with your ability to shift ground that even if every single instance my genuine attempt to restore those definitions to their proper place in astronomy,there is no means to deal with insincerity,again I am the one who failed and I have to live with that (see John 12). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second): [a] 24 hours exactly [b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds [c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year [d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each [e] something else (state your value) _____________ How many times did you refuse to answer that question? You knew the answer was (b) all along but it blows your screwy claims out of the water in an instant so you just couldn't admit it, even to yourself, could you. If you want to continue in this group, Gerald, be prepared to be challenged to face reality every time. All of us face Reality George,it is a fundamental tenet of my Christian faith. Christianity has moved with the times Gerald, it no longer requires the Earth to be at the centre and it is no longer seen as a loss of faith to accept Copernicus. John 12 25 "(1) He who loves his life loses it, and he who (2) hates his life in this world will keep it to life Eternal. To love life is to face it and deal with it, not to pretend it is something other than what it is. John means you should look at the stars and see when they actually set, then face that truth in a Christian manner. ..,you despise Newton ... I have hardly disagreed with you on what Newton said, you see 'absolute time' as the measure while I see his words as meaning that which is being measured, but other than that I don't know where we disagree. I thought you would find my use of GMT to define 'absolute time' on my diagrams acceptable since the peiods of 24h are 'equable', but you don't even have the courage to either accept that or suggest an alternative. It is not Newton that I object to but your denial of Copernicus, your discarding of Kepler's Laws, and your attempting to make the universe revolve around the Earth once a year ("the third rotation" as you call it). Behind all your posts is that rotten backdrop,you took your chances that it would eventually tend towards these type of posts even though the broad sweep of history was brought to bear on this thread and lovingly so,I can do no more than make the effort and in this I can find more shame in myself for not doing better. I am far more a Christian than you know,my heritage recognises that what you call empirical science is just warmed over gnosticism,a cult that nearly wiped out Christianity in its infancy.You introduce the pale imitation of gnosticism through the once noble tradition of astronomy and spend all of your time testing others to see what you can away with,too self-impressed with your ability to shift ground that even if every single instance my genuine attempt to restore those definitions to their proper place in astronomy,there is no means to deal with insincerity,again I am the one who failed and I have to live with that (see John 12). If you choose to be a Christian I have every respect for you, but when you distort it to require that the stars set at exactly the same (civil) time every night then it conflicts with reality. It just doesn't happen that way Gerald as you would find out if you ever did any astronomy. John 12 says you should embrace reality and try to understand it, not just refuse to answer my questions and hope it is an illusion. You will continue to fail because I make my points by asking you questions I know you can answer for yourself. The only way to avoid proving yourself wrong is either to lie or to refuse to answer. Your choice of the latter course is an admission that, perhaps only subconsciously, you know you are wrong. George |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second): [a] 24 hours exactly [b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds [c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year [d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each [e] something else (state your value) _____________ How many times did you refuse to answer that question? You knew the answer was (b) all along but it blows your screwy claims out of the water in an instant so you just couldn't admit it, even to yourself, could you. If you want to continue in this group, Gerald, be prepared to be challenged to face reality every time. All of us face Reality George,it is a fundamental tenet of my Christian faith. Christianity has moved with the times Gerald, it no longer requires the Earth to be at the centre and it is no longer seen as a loss of faith to accept Copernicus. John 12 25 "(1) He who loves his life loses it, and he who (2) hates his life in this world will keep it to life Eternal. To love life is to face it and deal with it, not to pretend it is something other than what it is. John means you should look at the stars and see when they actually set, then face that truth in a Christian manner. Perhaps the stars set for you but it is only the Earth rotating,I know you mean what you say,to face the truth as a Christian is to recognise that you can say it without reproach. ..,you despise Newton ... I have hardly disagreed with you on what Newton said, you see 'absolute time' as the measure while I see his words as meaning that which is being measured, but other than that I don't know where we disagree. I thought you would find my use of GMT to define 'absolute time' on my diagrams acceptable since the peiods of 24h are 'equable', but you don't even have the courage to either accept that or suggest an alternative. You bear the burden of your own heritage which made practical use of absolute time as one half of the Equation of Time,the German guys never understood what it meant therefore you have the priviledge of betraying your own people, for now you know that you can't jettison absolute time. As for an alternative,it takes only simple animation to combine the effects of finite light distance,data arriving from supernova and the changing orientation of their parent galaxies to the rotation of the local stars to accomplish cosmological modelling.This can be done at my own pace and with a large archive behind me it will be easy to present that your idea of the 'fixed' stars setting over the horizon is most definitely the product of geocentric thinking,not just primitive but absurd.I look forward to the challenge of refining the material for the benefit of humanity,all the good stuff of clocks,longitude,astronomy,history,geometry,human inventiveness with no linguistic dithering or pretension. It is not Newton that I object to but your denial of Copernicus, your discarding of Kepler's Laws, and your attempting to make the universe revolve around the Earth once a year ("the third rotation" as you call it). I told you before,the Equation of Time is the single most important piece of information in science and you play this silly game looking for reactions.I also told you that it is my problem if I cannot generate discussion on the 3rd rotation,the first rotation is the Earth on itsa axis,the 2nd its annual orbit around the Sun and the 3rd is its orbit around the galactic axis.All that is needed is to use supernova data as reference markers for their parent galaxies and use Milky Way rotation,in principle rather than observation to begin cosmological modelling.The scales are too large to accomplish this modelling in anything other than in principle,in all honesty,from looking at the abysmal standard of you and your colleagues I am abandoning the attempt to find at least one person capable of keeping up and now I would find more enjoyment restoring the work of the old astronomers instead insofar as true productive work is impossible. Behind all your posts is that rotten backdrop,you took your chances that it would eventually tend towards these type of posts even though the broad sweep of history was brought to bear on this thread and lovingly so,I can do no more than make the effort and in this I can find more shame in myself for not doing better. I am far more a Christian than you know,my heritage recognises that what you call empirical science is just warmed over gnosticism,a cult that nearly wiped out Christianity in its infancy.You introduce the pale imitation of gnosticism through the once noble tradition of astronomy and spend all of your time testing others to see what you can away with,too self-impressed with your ability to shift ground that even if every single instance my genuine attempt to restore those definitions to their proper place in astronomy,there is no means to deal with insincerity,again I am the one who failed and I have to live with that (see John 12). If you choose to be a Christian I have every respect for you, Nobody chooses to be a Chriastian,it is something that happens. but when you distort it to require that the stars set at exactly the same (civil) time every night then it conflicts with reality. The stars do not set,to say they do is a conflict with reality.I would have thought once that you were testing other participants but they seem no better or worse than you.Absolute time as Newton phrased it is based on the Earth's rotation without any external reference or 24 hour through 360 degrees,clocks were designed to measure distance to less than half a degree of longitude therefore civil time which is based on 15 degree/1 hour timezones is the product of a brute mind when dealing with the relationship between geometry,astronomy and clocks. It just doesn't happen that way Gerald as you would find out if you ever did any astronomy. John 12 says you should embrace reality and try to understand it, not just refuse to answer my questions and hope it is an illusion. You cannot embrace something you are encompassed in,Johannine Christianity as representative of the most developed form of Christ and Christianity is the backdrop of everything I do,not as something I choose to believe,not as a moral rulebook but as the connection between the Infinite and the definite.Without this connection there is no inspiration where all things become molten for a while in order to jettison those precepts based on insincerity,political advantage,self congratulation.Even the gnostics would have laughed at the pale imitation based on self-knowledge known as empirical science and insofar as my complaint is that there is no real opposition there is always hope in finding a genuine person among the thousands of relativistic clones. You will continue to fail because I make my points by asking you questions I know you can answer for yourself. The only way to avoid proving yourself wrong is either to lie or to refuse to answer. Your choice of the latter course is an admission that, perhaps only subconsciously, you know you are wrong. George You are still stuck in late 19th century thinking,did nobody ever tell you that this subconscious nonsense is another useless scam,frankly there are no real men left accept this effiminate junk that anybody with any sense pays attension to except conmen who use it in court or a partner with a bee on her bonnet. Relative Time = Natural unequal day absolute time = 24 hour day Difference between absolute time and relative time = Equation of Time It's that simple !. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
wrote in message ... the speed of light Don't post in html. Don't make attachments. These actions violate the rules of usenet. David A. Smith |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second): [a] 24 hours exactly [b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds [c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year [d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each [e] something else (state your value) _____________ How many times did you refuse to answer that question? You knew the answer was (b) all along but it blows your screwy claims out of the water in an instant so you just couldn't admit it, even to yourself, could you. If you want to continue in this group, Gerald, be prepared to be challenged to face reality every time. All of us face Reality George,it is a fundamental tenet of my Christian faith. Christianity has moved with the times Gerald, it no longer requires the Earth to be at the centre and it is no longer seen as a loss of faith to accept Copernicus. John 12 25 "(1) He who loves his life loses it, and he who (2) hates his life in this world will keep it to life Eternal. To love life is to face it and deal with it, not to pretend it is something other than what it is. John means you should look at the stars and see when they actually set, then face that truth in a Christian manner. Perhaps the stars set for you but it is only the Earth rotating, Yes Gerald, that's what the words mean. I know you mean what you say,to face the truth as a Christian is to recognise that you can say it without reproach. You don't need Christianity, just a dictionary. Try one some time. ...I look forward to the challenge of refining the material for the benefit of humanity,all the good stuff of clocks,longitude,astronomy,history,geometry,human inventiveness with no linguistic dithering or pretension. I take it you haven't heard of the sin of pride? It is not Newton that I object to but your denial of Copernicus, your discarding of Kepler's Laws, and your attempting to make the universe revolve around the Earth once a year ("the third rotation" as you call it). I told you before,the Equation of Time is the single most important piece of information in science You are almost correct, it could well be the single most important piece of information in the art of Sundial-Making. and you play this silly game looking for reactions.I also told you that it is my problem if I cannot generate discussion on the 3rd rotation,the first rotation is the Earth on itsa axis,the 2nd its annual orbit around the Sun and the 3rd is its orbit around the galactic axis. I have been trying to discuss this with you for weeks, but every time I try to do so, you change the subject and start talking about the EoT instead. You have, as you admit, only yourself to blame. I have responded to every one of your posts on the subject and will continue to do so but if you do not have the courage to defend your ideas against my simple geometric proof of your error, so be it, I cannot force you to address it. If you choose to be a Christian I have every respect for you, Nobody chooses to be a Chriastian,it is something that happens. but when you distort it to require that the stars set at exactly the same (civil) time every night then it conflicts with reality. The stars do not set,to say they do is a conflict with reality. To say a star sets is to understand that the phrase means that the Earth rotates so the star becomes hidden from view by some terrestrial feature. Is English your second language? I would have thought once that you were testing other participants but they seem no better or worse than you.Absolute time as Newton phrased it is based on the Earth's rotation What Newton _said_ is that absolute time was 'equable' even if there was _no_ 'equable' motion by which it could be measured, not even the rotation of the Earth, but that is not relevant to discussion of your "third rotation". .... You will continue to fail because I make my points by asking you questions I know you can answer for yourself. The only way to avoid proving yourself wrong is either to lie or to refuse to answer. Your choice of the latter course is an admission that, perhaps only subconsciously, you know you are wrong. You are still stuck in late 19th century thinking,did nobody ever tell you that this subconscious nonsense is another useless scam,frankly there are no real men left accept this effiminate junk that anybody with any sense pays attension to except conmen who use it in court or a partner with a bee on her bonnet. Yet still you prove me write by responding with dozens of lines on the EoT and ignoring the subject of our discussion. Relative Time = Natural unequal day absolute time = 24 hour day Difference between absolute time and relative time = Equation of Time It's that simple !. Your "third rotation" was explained by Copernicus as "The Earth goes round the Sun.", it is as simple as that. George |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second): [a] 24 hours exactly [b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds [c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year [d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each [e] something else (state your value) _____________ How many times did you refuse to answer that question? You knew the answer was (b) all along but it blows your screwy claims out of the water in an instant so you just couldn't admit it, even to yourself, could you. If you want to continue in this group, Gerald, be prepared to be challenged to face reality every time. All of us face Reality George,it is a fundamental tenet of my Christian faith. Christianity has moved with the times Gerald, it no longer requires the Earth to be at the centre and it is no longer seen as a loss of faith to accept Copernicus. John 12 25 "(1) He who loves his life loses it, and he who (2) hates his life in this world will keep it to life Eternal. To love life is to face it and deal with it, not to pretend it is something other than what it is. John means you should look at the stars and see when they actually set, then face that truth in a Christian manner. Perhaps the stars set for you but it is only the Earth rotating, Yes Gerald, that's what the words mean. I know you mean what you say,to face the truth as a Christian is to recognise that you can say it without reproach. You don't need Christianity, just a dictionary. Try one some time. ...I look forward to the challenge of refining the material for the benefit of humanity,all the good stuff of clocks,longitude,astronomy,history,geometry,human inventiveness with no linguistic dithering or pretension. I take it you haven't heard of the sin of pride? It is not Newton that I object to but your denial of Copernicus, your discarding of Kepler's Laws, and your attempting to make the universe revolve around the Earth once a year ("the third rotation" as you call it). I told you before,the Equation of Time is the single most important piece of information in science You are almost correct, it could well be the single most important piece of information in the art of Sundial-Making. Newton's phrasing of the Equation of Time as the difference between absolute time and relative time is clear enough - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar 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. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured." Principia If your own nation could spit you out it would for the heritage of clocks,navigation astronomy and geometry is bound to the Equation of Time and really clever men from your nation once made effective use of all these elements.You and your colleagues are traitors to your own heritage unlike the German guys who never understood what Newton meant. Simple animation of the motion of the local Milky Way stars against the remaining galaxies is all I require to carry the method of cosmological modelling via supernova data as representative of their parent galaxies and the difference between observed position and true position of these galaxies to each other.You waste your life as relativistic cannon fodder and now I would'nt even regard you as one to correspond with,like all traitors you are consigned to your rightful position in the scheme of things and that is that. and you play this silly game looking for reactions.I also told you that it is my problem if I cannot generate discussion on the 3rd rotation,the first rotation is the Earth on itsa axis,the 2nd its annual orbit around the Sun and the 3rd is its orbit around the galactic axis. I have been trying to discuss this with you for weeks, but every time I try to do so, you change the subject and start talking about the EoT instead. You have, as you admit, only yourself to blame. I have responded to every one of your posts on the subject and will continue to do so but if you do not have the courage to defend your ideas against my simple geometric proof of your error, so be it, I cannot force you to address it. If you choose to be a Christian I have every respect for you, Nobody chooses to be a Chriastian,it is something that happens. but when you distort it to require that the stars set at exactly the same (civil) time every night then it conflicts with reality. The stars do not set,to say they do is a conflict with reality. To say a star sets is to understand that the phrase means that the Earth rotates so the star becomes hidden from view by some terrestrial feature. Is English your second language? I would have thought once that you were testing other participants but they seem no better or worse than you.Absolute time as Newton phrased it is based on the Earth's rotation What Newton _said_ is that absolute time was 'equable' even if there was _no_ 'equable' motion by which it could be measured, not even the rotation of the Earth, but that is not relevant to discussion of your "third rotation". ... You will continue to fail because I make my points by asking you questions I know you can answer for yourself. The only way to avoid proving yourself wrong is either to lie or to refuse to answer. Your choice of the latter course is an admission that, perhaps only subconsciously, you know you are wrong. You are still stuck in late 19th century thinking,did nobody ever tell you that this subconscious nonsense is another useless scam,frankly there are no real men left accept this effiminate junk that anybody with any sense pays attension to except conmen who use it in court or a partner with a bee on her bonnet. Yet still you prove me write by responding with dozens of lines on the EoT and ignoring the subject of our discussion. Relative Time = Natural unequal day absolute time = 24 hour day Difference between absolute time and relative time = Equation of Time It's that simple !. Your "third rotation" was explained by Copernicus as "The Earth goes round the Sun.", it is as simple as that. George |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... Newton's phrasing of the Equation of Time as the difference between absolute time and relative time is clear enough - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar 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. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured." Principia You quoted the wrong section. Here is his actual definition: "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" Note he clearly says that measures based on motion are commonly used INSTEAD of true time and specifically gives the example of the hour. That is exactly the mistake you make when you say: absolute time = 24 hour day Don't you understand what he said? People commonly use the 24 hour day INSTEAD of absolute, true time. Isn't that clear enough for you? Your later quote points out that astronomers correct for the inequality of the natural days by the equation of time, yet this means they are then using the assumed regular rotation of the Earth as their "measure of [absolute] time". Again he distinguishes the measure from what is being measured and specifically "It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured." foreseeing our own understanding that the rotation of the Earth does indeed vary and is not as good a measure of his absolute time as the modern atomic clocks that give us TAI. If your own nation could spit you out it would for the heritage of clocks,navigation astronomy and geometry is bound to the Equation of Time and really clever men from your nation once made effective use of all these elements.You and your colleagues are traitors to your own heritage unlike the German guys who never understood what Newton meant. I am very proud of our heritage, which is why I won't let you debase it by repeating your simple geometric error unchallenged. If you aren't prepared to look at the proof, that's fine by me, children searching for answers to their homework will follow the links to the pages and see the true explanation for themselves, not your errant version. The question is there for you to answer Gerald: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 91 | August 1st 13 01:32 PM |
Light year distance question | Tony Sims | Technology | 7 | April 29th 05 04:41 PM |
SPACE SHUTTLES over JERUSALEM | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 15th 03 10:03 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. | The Ghost In The Machine | Astronomy Misc | 172 | August 30th 03 10:27 PM |