|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Newton's comment on the Equation of Time
"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." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time It must seem strangely familiar now that the Equation of Time represents the difference between the equable 24 hour day and the natural unequal day but what might not be so obvious is what happens after Newton describes the Equation of Time. He correctly identifies the Equation of Time as the principles that make the linking of geometry,astronomy and clocks possible however not until his astronomical perceptions of orbital motion appear can anyone fully appreciate that he has shifted to the sidereal value and justification for the Earth by which later physicists understood his work even though they had'nt a clue what he meant by absolute/relative time - Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed. The resolution of the error may not be so simple but the recognition of it is.Newton did not know how the pre- Copernican equable 24 hour day translates into independent axial rotation in a heliocentric system and he adopted the Flamsteed sidereal version as a working model. Everyone is now stuck with the error,the work of the first heliocentrists and their exquisite reasoning is in ruins and all because of a remarkable series of errors centered on the Equation of Time and the correct relationship between axial and orbital motion. Ultimately kids are receiving the insincerity passed from one generation to the next,an example among many is the NASA explanation based on daylight/darkness asymmetry,again,it is just another fabrication in a world that has known too many . http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html There is no dignity in your silence for if it serves your pleasure to call yourselves astronomers by virtue of owning a telescope then neither Copernicus nor Kepler were astronomers.I have no recourse than appeal to decency for none of the principles which correct the errors is difficult to understand and work with even if they are initially unfamiliar.I have not condescended to anyone for if a participant comes away understand what the Equation of Time is and its practicalities,they would know a lot more than the late 19th century/early 20th century guys such as Mach. Your call. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The case against time travel | persian ram | Misc | 0 | June 21st 05 09:30 PM |
Can't get out of the universe "My crew will blow it up"!!!!!!!!!!! | zetasum | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 4th 05 11:11 PM |
Can't get out of the universe "My crew will blow it up"!!!!!!!!!!! | zetasum | History | 0 | February 4th 05 11:06 PM |
Any complete standardized SNIa data out there? | Eric Flesch | Research | 77 | December 15th 04 09:30 PM |
Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology | Yoda | Misc | 0 | June 30th 04 07:33 PM |