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.

"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

"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).

"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

"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 !.

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

"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

"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

"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