What an awful mistake

Mikko Levanto wrote in message ...
Oriel36 wrote:

Mathematicians who are merely mathematicians are Kantian but the rarer
intuitive mathematicians will find that Pascal resonates strongly with
their investigations into natural phenomena.Mathematicians who link
the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion/sidereal
value are guilty of the omission of the principle that the Earth's
motions cannot be considered as a single sidereal motion or the
commonly refered to "the Earth goes around the Sun".The Earth has an
independent axial rotation which can be discriminated against its
annual orbital motion by means of the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency
but it is entirely false to place the value of axial rotation to 23
hours 56 min 04 sec.

The apparent circumpolar motion of stars is usually explained by the
rotation of Earth and non-rotation of the celestial sphere. You say
that this explanation is not correct. So what is the motion that we
see as the circumpolar motion of the stars?

Mikko

It is necessary to define a 24 hour day first before the annual cycle
is calculated as 365 days 5 hours 49 min.The original determination of
a 24 hour day is the Sun based reference for the motions of the
Earth,both axial and orbital, and specifically the longitude meridian
alignment when a meridian rotates to face the Sun directly to give
the term 'noon'.

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.pro...aval/defin.htm

Unfortunately most sites like the one above omit the necessary
Equation of Time computation which reduces observed natural noon to
the time of the civil meridian whereby the constancy of each axial
rotation to the next is maintained or what amonuts to the same
thing,the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next.

The 24 hour/360 degree equivalency of the axial rotation of the Earth
has no observed external reference which is why Newton,in defining and
distinguishing absolute and relative time via the Equation of Time, is
correct without having to affirm or deny the validity of the the
terms 'absolute' and 'relative'.It should be taken as a given that
relative time refers to the natural unequal day due to the compound
axial and orbital motion and absolute time as the constant 24 hour day
where the Earth's axial rotation can be considered in isolation from
its orbital motion.


"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

Turning to the justification of the sidereal value based on stellar
circumpolar motion,the first thing that may be noted is that in
directly fixing the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees directly to
the sidereal value,it creates a stellar circumpolar framework.

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

The original determination for the axial rotation of the Earth through
the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency achieves the isolation of that
axial rotation from its orbital motion as an independent motion,there
are no outside references to appeal to,while the Equation of Time
maintains a bridge to its observed orbital annual motion around the
Sun in terms of the compound motion of constant axial rotation and
variable orbital motion.

The sidereal value treats the Earth's axial rotation in isolation from
its orbital motion,as though the Earth were just spinning on its axis
and doing nothing else, by appealing to the appearance of a reference
star back to the same location in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.By anyone
standards this is ridiculous but unfortunately at the beginning of the
21st century this is what men are prepared to believe.

The justification of the sidereal value is well documented in many
websites but always bypasses the original determination of the 24 hour
day through the Equation of Time using the Sun as a reference.The
error is not the sidereal value itself but in directly linking the
Earth's 360 degree rotation to that value,it is a serious error for it
creates the stellar circumpolar framework or 'fixed stars' framework.


http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot3.htm

The Earth's axial rotation can be considered as an independent motion
isolated to 24 hours through 360 degrees.The astronomical importance
of this is best appreceated when the Earth's motion around the
galactic axis is taken into consideration and specifically the
changing orientation of the remaining galaxies to the local Milky Way
reference stars and their rotation around the galactic center.

In short,you do not wish to linger with the 'fixed stars' models of
the early 20th century for they generate this sidereal obstacle.

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

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

1 degree = 4 minutes clock time
360 degrees = 24 hours clock time

If you are so careless with basic principles ...

360 degrees OF LONGITUDE = 24 hours clock time

360 degrees OF ROTATION = 23h 56m 4.1s

It is you who is being careless by not stating clearly which
angle you are describing.


To determine the sidereal value,it is required to define a 24 hour day
first.
The 24 hour day is based on the Earth's axial rotation in 24 hours
through 360 degrees and only then can you determine the annual cycle
as 365.25 days.

If you cannot appreceate the subtleties of appreceating the 24 hour
day linked to axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees via the
EoT and then determining the sidereal value from that figure,it is not
my fault.

http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot3.htm







You said:
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Do you now wish to clarify that if you were just careless
with your wording that time too?


It is ill-defined,the basis for the 24 hour day is discrimation of
constant axial rotation against variable orbital motion.The sidereal
value and especially the modelling derived from that value bears no
relation to the original determination of a day,neither the natural
unequal day or the constant 24 hour day.

The sidereal value begins with the 24 hour day already determined but
this value is already defined as the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency
for the axial rotation of the Earth,it appears that you positively
refuse to acknowledge the basic principle of axial rotation and the
pace of this rotation in 24 hours through 360 degrees yet your
colleagues use it as a springboard to determine the later sidereal
value.



This diagram illustrating Kepler's first law clearly shows
that the orbital path of the Earth encompasses or 'goes
round' the Sun:

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...es/kepler1.gif

Can you see that your statement conflicts with the diagram?

Is the diagram wrong or was Kepler wrong?


Constant and independent axial rotation allied with variable orbital
motion generates the natural unequal day.The brilliance of men was to
isolate axial rotation as an independent motion with a constant 24
hour/360 degree equivalency from the compound axial/orbital motion,the
ignorance of man was to forcebly destroy the equivalency because a kid
in 1905 did'nt understand how Newton was distinguishing and defining
the natural unequal day from a constant clock day.

While you may look to Albert and his train and embankment,you should
look at the stellar circumpolar framework he stuck you with,this being
a consequence of not knowing what the EoT bridge between absolute and
relative time is,hell George,you now can be considered one of the
elite who can discuss Newton's definitions as they were originally
intended.



George
(You see, I can use repetition too.)


Repetition has its own rewards,first familiarity and secondly it is a
technical matter of the working of the internet but you may be slow to
pick up on that one.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
....
You said:
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Do you now wish to clarify that if you were just careless
with your wording that time too?

It is ill-defined,the basis for the 24 hour day is ...

The question is perfectly well defined because we are not
talking of the 24 hour day, we are talking about Kepler's
First Law which describes only the orbital motion, the
Earth's rotation plays no part in that. The statement may
be ill-defined but then you wrote it and that is why I am
asking you to clarify it. An ellipse obviously encompasses
its foci and Kepler's First Law says a planetary orbit is an
ellipse with the Sun at one focus, so the orbit encompasses
or 'goes round' the Sun. You denied that.

This diagram illustrating Kepler's first law clearly shows
that the orbital path of the Earth encompasses or 'goes
round' the Sun:

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...es/kepler1.gif

Can you see that your statement conflicts with the diagram?

Is the diagram wrong or was Kepler wrong?

Constant and independent axial rotation allied ...

No Gerald, orbital motion is the subject, not axial rotation.

Repetition has its own rewards,first familiarity and secondly it is a
technical matter of the working of the internet ...

No it isn't. When working in Usenet, repetition is deprecated
as a waste of bandwidth. The correct technique, when it is
essential, is to provide a URL to the previous statement.
However, continually repeating an answer that is of no
relevance to the question you are being asked is nothing but
a sign of stupidity whether you are on the internet or not.

A better approach in this case though would be for you to answer
my question instead of evading it. Once you admit that Kepler's
First Law places the Sun inside the orbit, the reason why the
rotation must be less than 24 hours per 360 degrees becomes
obvious, but that of course is why you avoid answering, you
have to admit that all the diagrams on the web you have been
claiming were flawed are actually accurate.

George