|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"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: One passage ties in with the other you numbskull,unless you are complete cretin he tells you mathematically what the relationship between absolute time and relative time is.Here it is - http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ex...n_of_time.html Heliocentric modelling woiuld be impossible if you used the relative day for the values are changing constantly,the EoT or the difference between absolute time and relative time evens it out to give equable motion based on 24 hours. "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: After you comprehend that absolute time is one half of the mathematical equation,you discover it is not a useless metaphysical concept that those idiots Mach and Einstein thought it was but a very practical mathematical Equation that turned clocks into rulers of distance,your countrymen worked for decades with this principle,you being a traitor to your own countrymen will twist Newton to your own useless ends. http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~teach...l/node107.html 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? Relative time = natural unequal day What part of natural day do you not understand,is it so difficult that your befuddled relativistic brain can't work things out from there. 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". The astronomers used the same EoT as the navigators did,it is based on the rotation of the Earth in 24 hrs through 360 degrees,I am fed up giving you this education even though there is that much material availible that carries this information that I can now only put it down to willful ignorance. 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. "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" Once you know it is the EoT you work out the components of absolute and relative as it it a mathematical relationship.Astronomers were actively correcting the difference between absolute and relative time so you twist Newton once again like Nazis who tried to wipe out history of the Jewish nation. 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. Pride,what pride !,you destroyed the better part of the development of accurate clocks as rulers,you won't or can't work out the components of the EoT for the purpose of astronomy or navigation,you adhere to the concepts of an idiot who destroyed the work of astronomers and astronomy,it is not a matter of you being proud of your nation,you no longer have that priviledge. 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 Your ideas don't even reach the level of primitive,they exist as cartoons for people who know no better.Live out the rest of your life as an Einstein apologist,a poor salesman of his own 'theories',I have better people to inform. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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... 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: One passage ties in with the other Then you should read both instead of ignoring the definition. "Absolute .. time .. flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration" "relative .. time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration .. such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" Those are his words, you should not ignore them. Try replying again _after_ you have taken his words on board. 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? Relative time = natural unequal day What part of natural day do you not understand,is it so difficult that your befuddled relativistic brain can't work things out from there. By his definition, the natural day is an unequable _measure_ so relative as you say. Mean time is an equable _measure_ so also relative by his definitions. To avoid precisely the trap you have fallen into, he specifically points out that the astronomers of his day used that _measure_ as if it were absolute time because the difference was then undetectable. Complain all you want Gerald, you cannot hide from what he said. "relative .. time is some sensible MEASURE of duration .. which is commonly used INSTEAD of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" The astronomers used the same EoT as the navigators did,it is based on the rotation of the Earth in 24 hrs through 360 degrees, http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm Between Figure 1 and Figure 2, the Earth turns through exactly 360 degrees. Between Figure 1 and Figure 3, the Earth turns for exactly 24 hours. Figure 2 cannot be coincident with Figure 3 because the Earth has moved in its orbit so if you want to hang on to your "360 degrees in 24 hours", you have no choice but to discard Kepler's First and Second Laws, not to mention Copernicus. You are simply confusing 360 degrees of longitude fixed to the Earth with 360 degrees of rotation of the Earth. They are not the same Gerald. I am fed up giving you this education even though there is that much material availible that carries this information that I can now only put it down to willful ignorance. You took the words right out of my mouth. The proof of your error is on the page above and uses nothing more complex than this theory: http://www.learn.co.uk/default.asp?WCI=Unit&WCU=4889 If you really understood this subject, you might even be able to tell what time the clock in Figure 2 would show, but I believe that is beyond you. George |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
In message , Oriel36
writes One passage ties in with the other you numbskull When you start being offensive you have not just lost the argument (that was probably when you first posted) but your audience. Plonk. -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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... 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: One passage ties in with the other Then you should read both instead of ignoring the definition. "Absolute .. time .. flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration" "relative .. time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration .. such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" Those are his words, you should not ignore them. Try replying again _after_ you have taken his words on board. Then he goes on to explain them in terms of the EoT so now you go along with those idiots Mach and Einstein who had'nt the foggiest notion what the EoT was and how absolute time is a component,the 24 hour clock to be precise. Hey George,half the civilised world knows that clocks solved the longitude problem and this relies on the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through 360 degrees.Now I would put it down to ignorance,stupidity or something else but you are making a tremendous effort to link the Earth's motion to the stars,the EoT refers only to the motion of the Earth and the observed motion of the Sun,not particularily difficult to understand and fairly easy to represent with graphics. 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? Relative time = natural unequal day What part of natural day do you not understand,is it so difficult that your befuddled relativistic brain can't work things out from there. By his definition, the natural day is an unequable _measure_ so relative as you say. Hey watch this George,no quotation marks -,the natural day is unequal,a 24 clock day is equal,relative or apparent motion is based on observations on Earth,true or absolute motion is the actual motions we partake in around the Sun,relative space is observed in terms of planets and the Sun absolute or true space is heliocentric modelling based on the true relationship of planets wrt the Sun. Mean time is an equable _measure_ so also relative by his definitions. To avoid precisely the trap you have fallen into, he specifically points out that the astronomers of his day used that _measure_ as if it were absolute time because the difference was then undetectable. Complain all you want Gerald, you cannot hide from what he said. He said the difference between absolute time and relative time is the Equation of Time,work everything out from there and especially the mathematical relationship. Now that Einstein was allowed to accomplish a blitkriez on your national heritage which worked it all out with designation of meridians,development of clocks and later the use of celestial navigation what are you going to tell your people when they find out they have been played for fools at the expense of the astronomical and nautical heritage. "relative .. time is some sensible MEASURE of duration .. which is commonly used INSTEAD of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" Capatalise all you wish,he goes on to explain it all in terms of the astronomical correction known as the EoT,anyone who says that the Germans don't have a sense of humor have'nt understood the joke they played on the accomplishments of your countrymen.Maybe when your people find out they might not see the funny side and then you can insult them all over again but I suggest you do it from a remote island. I have the weight of the history of the development of clocks in tandem with astronomy and maritime history,you have the meanderings of one kid,enjoy it while it lasts. The astronomers used the same EoT as the navigators did,it is based on the rotation of the Earth in 24 hrs through 360 degrees, http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm Between Figure 1 and Figure 2, the Earth turns through exactly 360 degrees. Between Figure 1 and Figure 3, the Earth turns for exactly 24 hours. Figure 2 cannot be coincident with Figure 3 because the Earth has moved in its orbit so if you want to hang on to your "360 degrees in 24 hours", you have no choice but to discard Kepler's First and Second Laws, not to mention Copernicus. You are simply confusing 360 degrees of longitude fixed to the Earth with 360 degrees of rotation of the Earth. They are not the same Gerald. You can't be an Englishman,I mean Harrison,Newton and everyone else knew that the observed motion of the Sun does'nt correspond to 24 hours through 360 degrees and therefore the difference between absolute time and relative time needed to be applied and it has nothing to do with the stars. Blame Newton if you like for condensing too much in defining absolute/relative time,space and motion but when you place his definitions in context of what was astronomically known in his era,everything he says is fine. Don't be pathetic and appeal to sidereal motion,clocks were developed on observed solar motion or what amounts to the same thing,the dual rotations of the Earth on its axis and its orbit around the Sun,the EoT makes it possible to turn an unequal day into a 24 hour day. I am fed up giving you this education even though there is that much material availible that carries this information that I can now only put it down to willful ignorance. You took the words right out of my mouth. The proof of your error is on the page above and uses nothing more complex than this theory: I have yet to see another work so hard to destroy his own national heritage,even a common thief has pride in the accomplishment of his nation but this is absent in every post you write,you hardly think I am bothered when so much documented history turns Einstein and Mach into fools and their concepts into contrived notions.It is not that difficult to supply graphics to untangle the components of the EoT and people could use a concerted effort to restore dignity to the once noble discipline of astronomy,geometry,geography and so on.Perhaps you can perpetuate the relativistic scam a bit longer but people are rediscovering their scientific heritage with all the other exotic scientific trash going around. http://www.learn.co.uk/default.asp?WCI=Unit&WCU=4889 If you really understood this subject, you might even be able to tell what time the clock in Figure 2 would show, but I believe that is beyond you. George Not one single person in 100 years has made the connection between absolute time and relative time as the Equation of Time even though Newton explicitly tells you it is the astronomical correction he is defining his terms in.Now with the longitude problem and clocks brought into focus it is not a difficult step to take to graft the EoT from there into astronomy.What is the best you can hope for,that you will die before you have to justify the scam perpetuated on people for a century,when idealistic things like relativity erupt like communism they often fall just as quickly.I have the pleasure of enjoying the original insights of a Copernicus, a Kepler or a Roemer by going outside and actually viewing how they viewed the true motions of the planets from earthbound observations,you only want self congratulation among many who only know more of the same. I can't believe an Englishman is arguing against his own heritage. Relative time = unequal natural day Absolute time = 245 hour clock Difference between relative time and absolute time = Equation of Time. The only frame of reference that applies to relativity and relativists is that they occupy the same level as creationsts and geocentrists and the Universe has played the funniest joke of all.If you don't believe me take a good look at the posts in sci.physics.research or sci.astro.research |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Equation of Time - does it correct for speed of light?
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... He said the difference between absolute time and relative time is the Equation of Time,work everything out from there and especially the mathematical relationship. No, he goes on to note that astronomers correct the natural day by the EoT and use it INSTEAD of absolute time. Read both paragraphs, not just the one you like. He specifically says that measures such as hours, days, months and years are not absolute time. "relative .. time is some sensible MEASURE of duration .. which is commonly used INSTEAD of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" Capatalise all you wish,he goes on to explain it all in terms of the astronomical correction known as the EoT, I capitalised because you seem have a sight defect, Newton's words cannot get past your eyes and reach your brain (unless they can be 'interpreted' to fit your preconception, the hour is commonly used "instead of true time". However, all that aside, Newton and the EOT are merely a distraction you introduced to deflect attention from the topic we were discussing, your so-called "third rotation". I have the weight of the history of the development of clocks in tandem with astronomy and maritime history,you have the meanderings of one kid,enjoy it while it lasts. You have nothing on your side but denial as shown by your refusal to address this proof that you are wrong: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm Between Figure 1 and Figure 2, the Earth turns through exactly 360 degrees. Between Figure 1 and Figure 3, the Earth turns for exactly 24 hours. Figure 2 cannot be coincident with Figure 3 because the Earth has moved in its orbit ... Don't waste your time replying unless you can explain how the Earth can turn through 360 degrees in 24 hours. George |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... He said the difference between absolute time and relative time is the Equation of Time,work everything out from there and especially the mathematical relationship. No, he goes on to note that astronomers correct the natural day by the EoT and use it INSTEAD of absolute time. Read both paragraphs, not just the one you like. He specifically says that measures such as hours, days, months and years are not absolute time. "relative .. time is some sensible MEASURE of duration .. which is commonly used INSTEAD of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year" Capatalise all you wish,he goes on to explain it all in terms of the astronomical correction known as the EoT, I capitalised because you seem have a sight defect, Newton's words cannot get past your eyes and reach your brain (unless they can be 'interpreted' to fit your preconception, the hour is commonly used "instead of true time". However, all that aside, Newton and the EOT are merely a distraction you introduced to deflect attention from the topic we were discussing, your so-called "third rotation". There is nothing so-called about it,the local Milky Way stars are rotating around the galactic axis and in principle the remaining galaxies change their orientation to the local stars due to this rotation.If you can't handle the Sun-centred axis from geocentric observations you are unlikely to handle the shift to the galactic-centred axis.Then you get into translations of 'acceleration' into rotation we spoke about last year,the data arriving from supernovae against local Milky Way rotation (again,in principle) and how a greater rotation than galactic rotation influences galactic formation and structure. Look,stay with the 'every point is the valid center balloon thingy', for cosmological modelling off the consistent rotation of the local stars around the galactic axis requires a transition away from heliocentric modelling to a greater reference axis so say goodbye to the convenience of picking and choosing the gobbledygook of 'reference frames'. You know,12 years ago I figured out why nature uses a particular geometry to express natural and cosmological balances and 4 years before the pictures of SN1987A emerged,I had the structure developed as two outer rings and an intersecting one,the thing is the only copyright I possess and even though it supplies an indirect means to determine the geometry of stellar collapse beyond the supernova stage I find myself here working on the wider astronomical elements that I never set out to do. http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/images/sn1987a.jpg I have the weight of the history of the development of clocks in tandem with astronomy and maritime history,you have the meanderings of one kid,enjoy it while it lasts. You have nothing on your side but denial as shown by your refusal to address this proof that you are wrong: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm Between Figure 1 and Figure 2, the Earth turns through exactly 360 degrees. Between Figure 1 and Figure 3, the Earth turns for exactly 24 hours. Figure 2 cannot be coincident with Figure 3 because the Earth has moved in its orbit ... Don't waste your time replying unless you can explain how the Earth can turn through 360 degrees in 24 hours. George Clocks are fixed to longitudinal meridian coordinates that rotate with the planet,it is fundamental to the development of clocks and the longitude problem in tandem with the EoT,if you are too old to change just say so but frankly as you are the only one who actually went out of their way to destroy your own heritage but at least give me something to work with.Sci.physics and sci.astro has become uninteresting,I have got what I needed and you can go back to discussing 4 dimensions,10 dimensions,warped space and those things for people who care enough about them. I bet you anything that you will miss the correspondence. |
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 |