|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"The Calendar" by David Ewing Duncan: Numerous Errors?
In message , Oriel36
writes Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... In message , Oriel36 writes The same old BS. To be fair to you,the mistake is a really old one and precedes the gravitational agenda (which makes use of the mistake) by a decade.The first professional astronomer was Flamsteed who set out to prove that the Earth rotates constantly on its axis through the motion of the fixed stars thereby making use of this observation for determining planetary longitude. Flamsteed was incorrect. And just how was Flamsteed incorrect? The rotation of the Earth _is_ isochronical, to use Flamsteed's word, and we can now test it using atomic clocks and measurements to a fraction of a second in a year.. That experiment was a bit like the recent attempt to measure the speed of gravity - we are sure of the result but it needs to be tested. Why not post the Flamsteed statement, or post a link to it? I did many times - ... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical" http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ongitude2.html A direct consequence of that statement can be found in any website refering to the sidereal value - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, but AFAICS Flamsteed was responsible for the idea of the equation of time. You won't find any,there is just myself. Such modesty :-) You can however appeal to those who are familiar with the equable 24 hour clock day,the Equation of Time correction from the noon determination and how one 24 hour day elapses seamlessly into the next 24 hour day by the 'Equation of Time' method but then you will encounter those who are aware that the precise value for axial rotation through 360 degrees,is and always will be 24 hours. Not in relation to the stars! BTW, either you have a virus or you are deliberately sending me unsolicited emails. I've changed my address in this to avoid spam, but here's what I received. Received: from pop.freeserve.com by merseia.fsnet.co.uk with POP3 id rve.com for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:00:19 +0100 Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3105 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:53:48 +0200 X-Sieve: Server Sieve 2.2 Received: by mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server, from userid 1003) id 3F9A3180031C; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:53:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pop.org (unknown [207.191.95.158]) by mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 598F918002AF for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:53:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:56:38 -0600 To: "Jsilverlight" From: "Geraldkelleher" Subject: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------puykljohxasqfycbydmo" Envelope-to: X-me-spamlevel: not-spam X-me-spamrating: 39.594129 cidgsakopqiz.bmp [ A MIME image / bmp part was included here. ] [ A MIME application / octet-stream part was included here. ] Any comment? The bitmap shows Key - 52741 and the application is something called fish.zip : data size 0kb. Just what are you sending, and why? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"The Calendar" by David Ewing Duncan: Numerous Errors?
Philip Clarke wrote:
................ Initially, I was struck by an internet article which described how the second was originally defined as 1 / 31,556,925.975 of a year, and then after Scientists complained that this was not accurate enough, they re-defined the second as 1 / 31,556,925.9747 of a year. By definition, a (mean solar?) year is 31,556,925.9747 seconds in duratin. The question is, if 0.003 of a second made a difference to Scientists in 1967, then why was the "caesium frequency" of the current year only defined to the nearest 0.5 seconds? I have looked at formulae by Newcomb and others without success. For future reference, I note that I have made a few errors in the paragraph above. Apart from the spelling mistake, there are two others which should be corrected; 1967 - The atomic second was defined in 1967. I should have said 1956 when the second was re-defined as 1 / 31,556,925.9747 of a year, having been previously defined in 1954 as 1 / 31,556,925.975 of a year (the tropical year of 1900). 0.5 seconds - this should have read 0.05 seconds. Regards, Philip Clarke |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |