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.

"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

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"

"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

"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

"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.