Thanks George

"Oriel36" wrote in message
You have to define a constant 24 hour day FIRST before you divide the
axial cycle into the annual cycle(the capitalisation is not done out
of irritation or loss of patience but because of it is of the utmost
importance).

The astronomical means to derive a constant 24 hour day is from the
natural unequal day and the EoT computation using ONLY the Sun as a
reference for the motions of the Earth.

The problem with your approach is that using ONLY the sun it is not possible
to determine the EoT. Using ONLY the sun, you can ONLY determine a
non-constant 'day'.

This means that in an average 24 hours the earth has to rotate more than
360
degrees.


The noon determination occurs at any given moment at a longitude
meridian location on the Earth,the determination of the exact moment
when a longitude meridian rotates to face the Sun directly (noon)
varies from one complete axial rotation to the next and constitutes
the natural unequal day.

The EoT, with its positive and negative values facilitates the
transition from one constant 24 hour day to the next and
astronomically this was made from the noon determination,we still
retain the AM and PM prefix when the astronomical day began at noon.

Imagine yourself as an ancient astronomer; how can you determine a
'constant' time frame if you use ONLY the sun?

If the daily rotation of the earth is measured against a 'fixed' frame,
i.e.
the fixed stars; then clearly the true 360 degrees is achieved in 23hrs,
56m, 04 sec.


No,you have already lost the significance of the 24 hour/360 deg
equivalency which provides the basis for the sidereal figure of 23
hours 56 min 04 sec.The original purpose for determination of the 24
hour day allied to civil longitude coordinates remains based on the
axial rotation of the Earth isolated from the variation in orbital
motion.

There is no 24hour/360degree equivalency in the earth's rotation.

There _is_ something approaching such an equivalency in the solar clock, but
this is uneven and inadequate for considering the true nature of time.
Newton knew this.

It stands to reason that axial rotation acting in concert with the
orbital motion reflected by Kepler's second law generates an
inequality registered by the variation in the pace of a shadow across
the face of a sundial.The EoT equalises the shadow's natural pace to a
constant pace and 24 hour clocks were developed to keep a constant
pace as a product of the EoT ,the equable 24 hour day which it
generates and subsequently the division of the 24 hour day into
subdivisions of hours,minutes and seconds.

So the EoT was a consequence of determining a TRUE constant time, better
than the 24 hour dirurnal clock . To determine the EoT, you need a better
clock. True?

Again,you have to define a 24 hour day first and subsequently hours
minutes and seconds before you determine that the annual cycle is
365.25 days.This is where the error exists in linking the Earth's
axial rotation directly to the stellar circumpolar figure.

But you cannot determine a constant 24 hour day without a better
time-keeper. The EoT is the adjustment made to the solar clock once you have
a better clock. Where else does the EoT come from?

The equation of time is an unrelated concept, being the adjustment made
to
smooth out the Solar clock to take into account the elliptical orbit
relected in the solar analemma. It enables us to have equal length
seconds,
minutes days etc, throughout the year.


Without the EoT you have no 24 hour clocks,with no 24 hour clocks you
cannot make the determination of the sidereal value,the value for the
annual cycle or the pace of anything else.

So you agree that without the EoT you don't have a constant 24 hour clock?
THIS IS IMPORTANT - capitalized because it's important etc.

Newton's comments about absolute time are intended to lay out the
difference
between the 'imperfect' solar time and the 'perfect' absolute time. The
point that is made is that all perfect times are equally perfect.


Newton's definitions and distinctions between absolute and relative
time contain a definite mathematical component,the EoT.He is being
pragmatic for he is aware that astronomers base their calculations and
modelling of the motions of the primary planets on the constant 24
hour day from observances conditioned by the natural unequal day.

But to get from 'the unequal day' to 'the equal day' you need the EoT, and
the EoT needs 'an equal clock' to compare with 'the unequal day', and 'the
equal clock' is 23:56:04 long and measured by the stars.

"The duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the
same, whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and
therefore, it ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible
measures thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the
astronomical equation."

In his description of absolute time he remarks accurately that there
is no observed equable motion corresponding to the pace of a 24 hour
clock yet a more sensitive examination of the material reveals that
the constant day is based solely on the axial rotation of the Earth
free of the variation in the natural unequal day,the variation is due
to Kepler's second law.

So we agree:- here you assert that the 'equal' day is based on the axial
rotation of 23:56:04, rather than the solar day of 24:00:00. Can you see
that you may be missing a step here. The solar day is 'in theory and
practice' unequal, the sidereal day is 'in theory and practice' equal.

Clearly sidereal time, being regulated by the rotational momentum of the
earth is much closer to perfection than solar time.


The overall importance of countering the direct linkage of the
rotation of the Earth to stellar circumpolar motion or what amounts to
the same thing - sidereal time,is that the original determination of
the 24 hour day via the EoT permits the isolation of constant axial
rotation from its orbital variation.

You seem here to say that
"We have to deny ("counter") a direct linkage between the earth's rotation
and sidereal time"
and
"we have to do this because we ALREADY have an equation (the EoT) that links
an imperfect clock to a perfect clock"
If I have misunderstood, then please let me know.
However - We do not have the EoT without a steady clock, and the steady
clock is measured against sidereal time.

The sidereal value creates a
stellar circumpolar framework whereas the original absolute time(as
Newton phrasedit) reflects only the axial rotation of the Earth
without any outside reference.Crucially,it is easier to begin with
axial rotation,then consider orbital motion around the Sun and then
consider the Earth's along with the rest of the solar system's
rotation about the galactic axis.

In terms of these ideas, could you explain where your view differs.
Thanks

It is a geometric treatment of clocks and their historic and
observational relationship to geometry and astronomy.

"OG" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
You have to define a constant 24 hour day FIRST before you divide the
axial cycle into the annual cycle(the capitalisation is not done out
of irritation or loss of patience but because of it is of the utmost
importance).

The astronomical means to derive a constant 24 hour day is from the
natural unequal day and the EoT computation using ONLY the Sun as a
reference for the motions of the Earth.

The problem with your approach is that using ONLY the sun it is not possible
to determine the EoT. Using ONLY the sun, you can ONLY determine a
non-constant 'day'.


There is no problem, 5200 years ago they not only calculated the
annual cycle and built monuments on that basis.Perhaps you are
conditioned to think on the basis of 365.25 days but you have already
forgotten that you have to define a 24 hour day first before you use
fractions of a 24 hour day,no small matter.

http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm

Put yourself in their position without a calendar and start thinking
geometrically.The Sun returns to the same position each annual
cycle,we now know that it is the Earth that returns to the same
position in its annual orbit.

Now begin to incorporate axial rotation within the full orbital
cycle.There is a variation from one axial rotation to the next when
the Sun is used as a reference.We now know that the variation is due
to Kepler's second law as constant axial rotation combines with
variable orbital motion (Kepler's second law) to generate the
inequality.The variation may be seen in the variable pace of a shadow
across the face of a dial from one axial rotation to the next,the
point at which the shadow strikes the observed noon line on the dial (
when the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly) constitutes the
natural unequal lenght of a day.

Now you start to form the basis of a 24 hour day,for it emerges from
the axial and orbital motion of the Earth,naturally axial and orbital
motion is combined but the pace of a 24 hour day refers to axial
rotation in isolation.

The Equation of time facilitates the seamless transition from one 24
hour day to the next 24 hour day by taking the variation in the
natural noon determination and equalising it to 24 hours by
appropriate addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds depending
on where the Earth is in its annual orbit.






This means that in an average 24 hours the earth has to rotate more than
360
degrees.


The noon determination occurs at any given moment at a longitude
meridian location on the Earth,the determination of the exact moment
when a longitude meridian rotates to face the Sun directly (noon)
varies from one complete axial rotation to the next and constitutes
the natural unequal day.

The EoT, with its positive and negative values facilitates the
transition from one constant 24 hour day to the next and
astronomically this was made from the noon determination,we still
retain the AM and PM prefix when the astronomical day began at noon.

Imagine yourself as an ancient astronomer; how can you determine a
'constant' time frame if you use ONLY the sun?


The EoT computation recognises the division of axial cycles within the
bounded orbital cycle and equalises the pace of the axial cycle to 24
hours even though a natural variation exists in its orbital motion.It
is a straightforward geometric averaging to get the 24 day within the
bounded annual cycle,the compromise is that there is no observed
motion corresponding to the 24 hour clock.

You can determine a 24 hour day from the bounded annual cycle and even
say that the annual cycle is 365.25 days long but for goodness sake
recognise that only now can you start to talk about developing the
sidereal figure.







If the daily rotation of the earth is measured against a 'fixed' frame,
i.e.
the fixed stars; then clearly the true 360 degrees is achieved in 23hrs,
56m, 04 sec.


No,you have already lost the significance of the 24 hour/360 deg
equivalency which provides the basis for the sidereal figure of 23
hours 56 min 04 sec.The original purpose for determination of the 24
hour day allied to civil longitude coordinates remains based on the
axial rotation of the Earth isolated from the variation in orbital
motion.

There is no 24hour/360degree equivalency in the earth's rotation.


Sure there is -

http://www.uwm.edu/Course/416-125/02...n/fg01_14b.jpg

Adjustments were made such as the international date line but the
principle of longitude meridians as carriers of time coordinates are
always based on the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency.Just set the Earth
spinning on its axis and you get 24 hours for each axial rotation.Use
the Sun as a reference and the EoT isolates the rotation of the Earth
from the variation in orbital motion.



There _is_ something approaching such an equivalency in the solar clock, but
this is uneven and inadequate for considering the true nature of time.
Newton knew this.


"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." Principia

There is no 'true' thing to discuss,there is the geometric components
of the EoT and specifically the difference between the variation in
the natural day and the 24 hour day.



It stands to reason that axial rotation acting in concert with the
orbital motion reflected by Kepler's second law generates an
inequality registered by the variation in the pace of a shadow across
the face of a sundial.The EoT equalises the shadow's natural pace to a
constant pace and 24 hour clocks were developed to keep a constant
pace as a product of the EoT ,the equable 24 hour day which it
generates and subsequently the division of the 24 hour day into
subdivisions of hours,minutes and seconds.

So the EoT was a consequence of determining a TRUE constant time, better
than the 24 hour dirurnal clock . To determine the EoT, you need a better
clock. True?


There is no "EoT was",the EoT still corrects from the natural day to
the constant 24 hour day based on the isolation of the axial rotation
of the Earth.




Again,you have to define a 24 hour day first and subsequently hours
minutes and seconds before you determine that the annual cycle is
365.25 days.This is where the error exists in linking the Earth's
axial rotation directly to the stellar circumpolar figure.

But you cannot determine a constant 24 hour day without a better
time-keeper. The EoT is the adjustment made to the solar clock once you have
a better clock. Where else does the EoT come from?


Think geometrically,if the natural day is unequal,the inequality is
due to constant axial rotation combined with variable orbital
motion,if you applied the EoT in reverse you would get the observed
natural noon determination,either by observation directly or by
sundial.





The equation of time is an unrelated concept, being the adjustment made
to
smooth out the Solar clock to take into account the elliptical orbit
relected in the solar analemma. It enables us to have equal length
seconds,
minutes days etc, throughout the year.


Without the EoT you have no 24 hour clocks,with no 24 hour clocks you
cannot make the determination of the sidereal value,the value for the
annual cycle or the pace of anything else.

So you agree that without the EoT you don't have a constant 24 hour clock?
THIS IS IMPORTANT - capitalized because it's important etc.


You have the natural unequal day but no constant 24 hour day so you
conclude that the EoT effectively is a computational means to
determine the definition of a day using the Sun as a reference at
noon.




Newton's comments about absolute time are intended to lay out the
difference
between the 'imperfect' solar time and the 'perfect' absolute time. The
point that is made is that all perfect times are equally perfect.


Newton's definitions and distinctions between absolute and relative
time contain a definite mathematical component,the EoT.He is being
pragmatic for he is aware that astronomers base their calculations and
modelling of the motions of the primary planets on the constant 24
hour day from observances conditioned by the natural unequal day.

But to get from 'the unequal day' to 'the equal day' you need the EoT, and
the EoT needs 'an equal clock' to compare with 'the unequal day', and 'the
equal clock' is 23:56:04 long and measured by the stars.

Funny,funny,funny.

Look,I assure you that when navigators determined local noon they
reduced this determination to their civil longitude coordinates via
the EoT and used the equable 24 hour clock which kept longitude with a
distant meridian to determine their location and distance on the
planet.This equable clock relies on the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency
where 1 deg = 4 minutes clock time reflecting the axial rotation of
the Earth.








"The duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the
same, whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and
therefore, it ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible
measures thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the
astronomical equation."

In his description of absolute time he remarks accurately that there
is no observed equable motion corresponding to the pace of a 24 hour
clock yet a more sensitive examination of the material reveals that
the constant day is based solely on the axial rotation of the Earth
free of the variation in the natural unequal day,the variation is due
to Kepler's second law.

So we agree:- here you assert that the 'equal' day is based on the axial
rotation of 23:56:04, rather than the solar day of 24:00:00.

You are a newbie and this is what newbies do.

Again,I assure you the Earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours and
clocks were designed to keep pace with that rotation rate.,it is the
most fundamental rotation of all and needs no outside reference to
determine it as it stands in association with clocks,longitude and the
whole nine yards.



Can you see
that you may be missing a step here. The solar day is 'in theory and
practice' unequal, the sidereal day is 'in theory and practice' equal.








Clearly sidereal time, being regulated by the rotational momentum of the
earth is much closer to perfection than solar time.


The overall importance of countering the direct linkage of the
rotation of the Earth to stellar circumpolar motion or what amounts to
the same thing - sidereal time,is that the original determination of
the 24 hour day via the EoT permits the isolation of constant axial
rotation from its orbital variation.

You seem here to say that
"We have to deny ("counter") a direct linkage between the earth's rotation
and sidereal time"
and
"we have to do this because we ALREADY have an equation (the EoT) that links
an imperfect clock to a perfect clock"
If I have misunderstood, then please let me know.
However - We do not have the EoT without a steady clock, and the steady
clock is measured against sidereal time.


Good for you,I'm sure your Earth rotates against the stars and does
nothing else but this will make you a fine relativist.I am finding
these days that relativity is changing into siderealism,that strange
mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,for if you cannot determine
what the most basic rotation rate of the Earth is and get it
siderealistically wrong I do not think it can get any worse or more
boring.

You have the benefit of the final posting ,I can go enjoy the rest of
humanity and return to this repulsive arena with its repulsive
concepts in due course.


The sidereal value creates a
stellar circumpolar framework whereas the original absolute time(as
Newton phrasedit) reflects only the axial rotation of the Earth
without any outside reference.Crucially,it is easier to begin with
axial rotation,then consider orbital motion around the Sun and then
consider the Earth's along with the rest of the solar system's
rotation about the galactic axis.

In terms of these ideas, could you explain where your view differs.
Thanks

It is a geometric treatment of clocks and their historic and
observational relationship to geometry and astronomy.

You really need to address the issues.

Without some constant timekeeping you cannot get an equation of time.

The constant clock is the sidereal rate.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that discussing this with you is not
really a fruitful way to spend my time, so having wished you Season's
Greetings I

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...

No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.
..
"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."

Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.


Good boy George,now you know what absolute and relative time is and
that there is no ambiguity in Newton's terms and you don't go
tampering with them.




I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT ..

Well you wouldn't, would you, it shows you are wrong.


The benefit of raising the issue is that you are now one of the elite
who can discuss Newton's absolute and relative time as the EoT.This
is how the 24 hour day is determined from the natural unequal day and
as it refers to a loop system where the EoT values of minutes and
seconds adjust the natural inequality to a 24 hour equality.There is
no fraction of a day involved (365.25 days) which serve the purpose of
the calendar system for the EoT values run seamlessly from one axial
rotation to the next.




and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,

The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.

It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

The day is defined as you said above "using the Sun alone as a
reference" so that we can eat lunch in daylight. Rotation on
the other hand is measured:


The 24 hour day is a precise geometrical and astronomical relationship
but I assure you that you are required to determine where the 24 hour
day emerges first before you begin to divide it into the annual cycle
and come up with the 365.25 day value.

There is nothing wrong with Huygens and Flamsteed division of the
annual cycle by 24 hour days which forms the basis of the 365.25 day
calendar system and the sidereal value but fundamentally the 24 hour
day comes from the equalisation of the natural day to a constant pace
within the bounded annual cycle,the EoT values increasing and
decreasing and reflecting the combined effect of axial rotation and
orbital motion.

What a superb system we inherited yet you do not know where a 24 hour
day comes from,what the rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees
is and that is pretty desperate.












http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...

However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:


Therein lies the problem with the sidereal value which attributes a
constant .986 degree orbital motion to the Earth.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

Siderealists/relativists really believe that there is a constant
longitudinal alignment of the Earth to the Sun in 24 hours and it cute
in the sort of way creationism is harmless.

http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html



Kepler's second law is a clear indication why there is a variation in
the natural day,given that axial rotation is constant and why the EoT
is necessary to reduce this inequality to an equality by gauging the
pace of axial rotation of the Earth to 24 hours/360 degrees.



http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...s/kepler2.html


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is
ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,

Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.

You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..

No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.


Newton explained why the planet moves faster at the perihelion than
the aphelion and as a consequence why the orbit is elliptical and not
circular,therefore it is nearly impossible to discuss Kepler's first
law without the second.



Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT..

Pay attention Gerald, we are talking about orbital motion
and Kepler's _First_ Law.

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.

No I am just sitting here at home, enjoying the holiday and not
moving over the surface of the planet at all. What you mean is
that if I were 1 degree of longitude west of here, natural noon
would occur 4 minutes later. You really must try to be more
careful with your wording. That is why the correspondence is
to degrees of longitude, not degrees of rotation.

I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.

Harrison said "longitude" so I'll just believe he knew the
difference, something it appears you have yet to learn.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...

No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.
..
"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."

Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.


Good boy George,now you know what absolute and relative time is and
that there is no ambiguity in Newton's terms and you don't go
tampering with them.




I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT ..

Well you wouldn't, would you, it shows you are wrong.


The benefit of raising the issue is that you are now one of the elite
who can discuss Newton's absolute and relative time as the EoT.This
is how the 24 hour day is determined from the natural unequal day and
as it refers to a loop system where the EoT values of minutes and
seconds adjust the natural inequality to a 24 hour equality.There is
no fraction of a day involved (365.25 days) which serve the purpose of
the calendar system for the EoT values run seamlessly from one axial
rotation to the next.




and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,

The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.

It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

The day is defined as you said above "using the Sun alone as a
reference" so that we can eat lunch in daylight. Rotation on
the other hand is measured:


The 24 hour day is a precise geometrical and astronomical relationship
but I assure you that you are required to determine where the 24 hour
day emerges first before you begin to divide it into the annual cycle
and come up with the 365.25 day value.

There is nothing wrong with Huygens and Flamsteed division of the
annual cycle by 24 hour days which forms the basis of the 365.25 day
calendar system and the sidereal value but fundamentally the 24 hour
day comes from the equalisation of the natural day to a constant pace
within the bounded annual cycle,the EoT values increasing and
decreasing and reflecting the combined effect of axial rotation and
orbital motion.

What a superb system we inherited yet you do not know where a 24 hour
day comes from,what the rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees
is and that is pretty desperate.












http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...

However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:


Therein lies the problem with the sidereal value which attributes a
constant .986 degree orbital motion to the Earth.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

Siderealists/relativists really believe that there is a constant
longitudinal alignment of the Earth to the Sun in 24 hours and it cute
in the sort of way creationism is harmless.

http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html



Kepler's second law is a clear indication why there is a variation in
the natural day,given that axial rotation is constant and why the EoT
is necessary to reduce this inequality to an equality by gauging the
pace of axial rotation of the Earth to 24 hours/360 degrees.



http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...s/kepler2.html


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is
ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,

Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.

You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..

No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.


Newton explained why the planet moves faster at the perihelion than
the aphelion and as a consequence why the orbit is elliptical and not
circular,therefore it is nearly impossible to discuss Kepler's first
law without the second.



Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT..

Pay attention Gerald, we are talking about orbital motion
and Kepler's _First_ Law.

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.

No I am just sitting here at home, enjoying the holiday and not
moving over the surface of the planet at all. What you mean is
that if I were 1 degree of longitude west of here, natural noon
would occur 4 minutes later. You really must try to be more
careful with your wording. That is why the correspondence is
to degrees of longitude, not degrees of rotation.

I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.

Harrison said "longitude" so I'll just believe he knew the
difference, something it appears you have yet to learn.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...

No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.
..
"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."

Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.


Good boy George,now you know what absolute and relative time is and
that there is no ambiguity in Newton's terms and you don't go
tampering with them.




I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT ..

Well you wouldn't, would you, it shows you are wrong.


The benefit of raising the issue is that you are now one of the elite
who can discuss Newton's absolute and relative time as the EoT.This
is how the 24 hour day is determined from the natural unequal day and
as it refers to a loop system where the EoT values of minutes and
seconds adjust the natural inequality to a 24 hour equality.There is
no fraction of a day involved (365.25 days) which serve the purpose of
the calendar system for the EoT values run seamlessly from one axial
rotation to the next.




and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,

The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.

It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

The day is defined as you said above "using the Sun alone as a
reference" so that we can eat lunch in daylight. Rotation on
the other hand is measured:


The 24 hour day is a precise geometrical and astronomical relationship
but I assure you that you are required to determine where the 24 hour
day emerges first before you begin to divide it into the annual cycle
and come up with the 365.25 day value.

There is nothing wrong with Huygens and Flamsteed division of the
annual cycle by 24 hour days which forms the basis of the 365.25 day
calendar system and the sidereal value but fundamentally the 24 hour
day comes from the equalisation of the natural day to a constant pace
within the bounded annual cycle,the EoT values increasing and
decreasing and reflecting the combined effect of axial rotation and
orbital motion.

What a superb system we inherited yet you do not know where a 24 hour
day comes from,what the rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees
is and that is pretty desperate.












http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...

However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:


Therein lies the problem with the sidereal value which attributes a
constant .986 degree orbital motion to the Earth.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

Siderealists/relativists really believe that there is a constant
longitudinal alignment of the Earth to the Sun in 24 hours and it cute
in the sort of way creationism is harmless.

http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html



Kepler's second law is a clear indication why there is a variation in
the natural day,given that axial rotation is constant and why the EoT
is necessary to reduce this inequality to an equality by gauging the
pace of axial rotation of the Earth to 24 hours/360 degrees.



http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...s/kepler2.html


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is
ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,

Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.

You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..

No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.


Newton explained why the planet moves faster at the perihelion than
the aphelion and as a consequence why the orbit is elliptical and not
circular,therefore it is nearly impossible to discuss Kepler's first
law without the second.



Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT..

Pay attention Gerald, we are talking about orbital motion
and Kepler's _First_ Law.

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.

No I am just sitting here at home, enjoying the holiday and not
moving over the surface of the planet at all. What you mean is
that if I were 1 degree of longitude west of here, natural noon
would occur 4 minutes later. You really must try to be more
careful with your wording. That is why the correspondence is
to degrees of longitude, not degrees of rotation.

I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.

Harrison said "longitude" so I'll just believe he knew the
difference, something it appears you have yet to learn.

George

"OG" wrote in message ...
You really need to address the issues.


The issues have never been clearer,how to determine a 24 hour day and
why the pace of a clock gauges the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours
through 360 degrees.

Here are a few of those cute siderealistic websites which graphically
express the error.
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html


Relativistic numbskulls when they jettisoned Newton's 'absolute time'
force themselves to believe that there is equable motion wrt the Sun
when Newton knew that the pace of axial rotation of the Earth to 24
hours has no observed celestial reference.


Without some constant timekeeping you cannot get an equation of time.

The constant clock is the sidereal rate.


The creationist says that the Earth is about 6000 years
old,relativists say that the axial rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees is 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.Anyone who choses the sidereal
figure can go outside tonight and look at what happens when you fix
the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,you get
the stellar circumpolar framework for the cosmos.It is that simple.







Unfortunately, I have to conclude that discussing this with you is not
really a fruitful way to spend my time, so having wished you Season's
Greetings I

Time is not yours to spend.

What is time?

The shadow on the dial,
the striking of the clock,
the running of the sand,
day and night, summer and winter, months, years, centuries
- these are but arbitrary and outward signs,
the measure of Time, not Time itself.
Time is the Life of the soul.


Henry W. Longfellow (1807-1882).

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

[snip attempts to educate Gerald, waste of time]

The 24 hour day is a precise geometrical and astronomical relationship
but I assure you that you are required to determine where the 24 hour
day emerges first before you begin to divide it into the annual cycle
and come up with the 365.25 day value.

You just count the number of periods of daylight and darkness.
There are 1461 such cycles in 4 years.

What a superb system we inherited yet you do not know where a 24 hour
day comes from,..

'The day' comes from the duration of the cycle of daylight and
darkness as a result of millions of years of evolution. It is
the mean period of that cycle and was known long before humans
could even count. Breaking the day into 24 hours came much later.

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...

However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:

[snip lies, the sidereal day relates to the constant
rotation of the Earth as you know perfectly well]

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is
ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,

Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.

You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..

No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.


Newton explained

We are talking about Kepler.

why the planet moves faster at the perihelion than
the aphelion and as a consequence why the orbit is elliptical and not
circular,therefore it is nearly impossible to discuss Kepler's first
law without the second.

Kepler's first law says the orbit is an ellipse but does not
specify a speed of motion so you can discuss it alone. The
second law only talks of the area swept by a line from the
Sun to the planet so you must know the shape of the orbit and
location of the Sun in order to turn that into a speed. It is
certainly difficult to discuss the second without being clear
about the first, but you can discuss the first alone by only
considering the path of the planet and not its speed along
the path.

You are half way there as you said "the orbit is elliptical".
All you need to do next is say where the Sun is in relation to
that ellipse and then we can move on to the second. Kepler said
the Sun was at one focus, do you agree or do you place it
somewhere else?

George

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.

Only after the EoT is applied ...

No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.
..
"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."

Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.

Good boy George,now you know what absolute and relative time is

Unfortunately you missed the point entirely. I said "the EOT
only deals with the variation of the [natural] day from the
mean." Newton said "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 [by the EoT]"

Both paragraphs say the EoT only removes the variation or
inequality of the days. In other words it corrects the
effect of Kepler's second law but not the first. I guess
it was too much to hope you could see that.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...

No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.
..
"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."

Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.


Good for you George,the first time in 100 years that anyone has
bothered to discuss Newton's absolute and relative time as the EoT and
that is one hell of an accomplishment.

The next time a relativistic geek announces on tv that "time is not
absolute" or Newton thought this or that,you will know better.


I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT ..

Well you wouldn't, would you, it shows you are wrong.


Newton is not wrong,the EoT and what it refers to reflect appreceation
of the determination of a 24 hour day from its bounded annual cycle.

The neolithic builders knew the annual cycle well over 5000 years ago

http://www.carrowkeel.com/files/articles/tomray.html

Huygens and Flamsteed derived the isochronos sidereal value by
dividing 24 hour days into 365.25 days but remember you have to
determine the 24 hour day first.For appreceation of the neolithic
builders and for those who really wish to appreceate the EoT,it is
important to drop the calendar system and treat the whole thing
geometrically for ultimately one needs to determine where the 24 hour
value for axial rotation of the Earth comes from.






and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,

The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.

It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

The day is defined as you said above "using the Sun alone as a
reference" so that we can eat lunch in daylight. Rotation on
the other hand is measured:

I am presenting the historical and observational origins for the
determination of a 24 hour day via the EoT and you are talking about
'lunchtime'.I feel absolutely ashamed that I myself may be handling
the inherited material badly but in the absense of any discussion
designed to rectify the perversion of the most basic principles of
astronomy or the presence of mindnumbing tediousness
perhapsinvestigation into natural phenomena is beyond recovery.




http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...

However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:


It is nearly impossible to discuss the first law in isolation from the
second,Newton explained not just why the orbit is elliptical but why
it moves faster in orbit at the perihelion than the aphelion.The
variation in the natural day as the determined by axial rotation is a
consequence of the second law.

In the days before the rediscovery of clocks and longitude you could
discuss 'absolute time' without bothering to even consider what the
original EoT meaning was,now you are exactly where I wish you to be
and discussing Kepler and Newton's time definitions and how they mesh
and seperate,again quite an accomplishment.



"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is
ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,

Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.

You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..

No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.


You lost your nerve and now know that the axial rotation of the Earth
is exactly 24 hours through 360 degrees.

Good,the job is accomplished.


Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT..

Pay attention Gerald, we are talking about orbital motion
and Kepler's _First_ Law.


Once you trimmed the sentence relating to axial rotation,it represents
a victory for astronomy.I know enough to recognise the change without
shoving it down your throat,put whatever slant you want on it,Newton's
definitions are restored to there original condition as functional
components of the EoT.

It spares me from having to deal with newbies,repetition and all the
things I detest to carry the point that relativity indeed foisted a
unique perspective on humanity,the stellar circumpolar framework.


"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.

No I am just sitting here at home, enjoying the holiday and not
moving over the surface of the planet at all. What you mean is
that if I were 1 degree of longitude west of here, natural noon
would occur 4 minutes later. You really must try to be more
careful with your wording. That is why the correspondence is
to degrees of longitude, not degrees of rotation.


Enjoy the holiday with the longitude book and how clocks solved it,you
even have the advantage of knowing why the EoT isolates the axial
rotation of the Earth to the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency even though
constant axial rotation is combined naturally with the variation in
orbital motion.

Maybe next year you will write a great book celebrating the connection
between clocks/longitude and clocks/astronomy,the way a 24 hour day is
generated from the natural unequal day and how later men divided this
24 hour day to give the calendar system of 365.25 days,the sidereal
view and many other benefits.











I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.

Harrison said "longitude" so I'll just believe he knew the
difference, something it appears you have yet to learn.

George


Well George the job is accomplished,at least to my own satisfaction
with no reason to believe that anything is unjust or that something
needs to be proved or disproved.I can probably tidy up correspondence
from here on in but the main features are in place such as the
designation of how the 24 hour day emerged via the EoT,a process which
is seperate to the later division of the annual cycle by the 24 hour
day to give 365.25 days.

Don't forget that by my standards it was a particularly thorny
challenge but there you have it,the few years investigation was worth
it and I leave you with your siderealistic notions and relativistic
wordplays without predjudice.