What an awful mistake

"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
om...
There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ...

Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this.


I know.



This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in
an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with
Kepler's First Law:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,
but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion
if you agree with Kepler's First Law.

What are you really saying here?

George

If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there
left to say.

Well you could answer my question. How can you say there
is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you
understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it
cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your
views that I don't understand.


How long have we been dealing with the development of clocks,the
longitude problem and using the EoT to bridge the gap between the
natural unequal day and the constant 24 hour clock day ?.

How long have you been avoiding answering my questions?

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

I now genuinely believe that those who inherit the astronomical
tradition really are not up to the job,it is not exactly incompetence
but there is a lot of bluffing going on.

Given that the diagram exactly matches your own words,
you need to tell me what you think is wrong with it or
I will have to conclude you are the one who is bluffing.

The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the
meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment
varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour
axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines.

You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in
that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the
Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption
about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts
that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is
that correct or have I misunderstood you?


The Earth rotates at a constant rate,

Good, that is a clear answer and something we
can agree.

the variation in the natural day
as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in
distance covered in the Earth orbital path,

Fine, again we agree, and what I have been explaining
to you is the mechanism by which the varying distance
contributes to the variation of the natural day.

It is pleasent to get a courteous response for a change

You will always get courteous responses from me as
long as you refrain from insults. I will trim out
your text when you wander off the topic but that is
only to avoid this dragging on for years. We have
been arguing far too long already.

and this has
been a long lonely road.Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path

Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the
top of this post you will find I said:

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,

Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you
insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I
deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence
specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it
varies?

According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees
in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time
at aphelion.

nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the
sidereal figure.

Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day
is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously
know that so why suggest it is?

George

The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no
distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal
representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the
EoT elsewhere.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000



I guess there is nothing left to say,in all the years not one other
person has brought up these points and they are oh so intricate in an
era swamped with information,in this respect I do credit you with
following through when it is easy to look at things that seem more
novel.

As I am a Christian there is no reason for despondency,it is always a
tenet of faith that things appear barren for a while and even the joy
at coming to settled conclusions pass and it is time to move on.The 8
years of work done on geometric nonperiodicity and its cosmological
links presently appears as a wasted effort and I have rarely mentioned
it in the time in sci.physics,most if not all is astronomical
forensics and that can only generate a limited interest.

One Christian as representative of Christ and Christianity and whom I
understood more than any other was the great English poet William
Blake and even though many mathematicians use his picture of
Newton,very few understand what the painting signifies - all head and
no heart.

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhib...n/cast_05.html


"If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetic character, the Philosophic
& Experimental would soon be at the ratio of all things & stand still,
unable to do other than repeat the same dull round over again "

(William Blake, There is No Natural Religion , b)

The loss of the connection between the Infinite and the definite is an
easy thing to mock but ultimately very few now try to celebrate it
even if we see ourselves failing.The strife between harmony and
invention/discovery is what marks the life of a man and just as long
as he remains sincere humanity is often enriched regardless of how
difficult outside conditions are or the internal hostile atmosphere
is,this is not a self-projecting image but a truth,I could not operate
without opposition and neither could you.

Somewhere there is a balance,I would not care to acknowledge it as an
ideal but for the moment this is lost,both in the study of nature and
among men.

"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
...

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

Why do you think the page is wrong?

....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path

Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the
top of this post you will find I said:

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,

Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you
insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I
deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence
specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it
varies?

Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true?

According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees
in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time
at aphelion.

Do you agree with these values?

nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the
sidereal figure.

Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day
is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously
know that so why suggest it is?

Again why do you write something you know is not true?

The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no
distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal
representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the
EoT elsewhere.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page
you quote both in the text and the diagram:

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif

I guess there is nothing left to say, ...

If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed
nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the
standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim,
the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the
same thing that you state in your text. The only specific
you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the
Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly
said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere
you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting
instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising
this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions
above so you can answer them if you want to continue.
Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error
you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can
understand your that.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"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
...

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

Why do you think the page is wrong?

....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path

Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the
top of this post you will find I said:

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,

Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you
insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I
deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence
specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it
varies?

Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true?

According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees
in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time
at aphelion.

Do you agree with these values?

nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the
sidereal figure.

Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day
is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously
know that so why suggest it is?

Again why do you write something you know is not true?

The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no
distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal
representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the
EoT elsewhere.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page
you quote both in the text and the diagram:

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif

I guess there is nothing left to say, ...

If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed
nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the
standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim,
the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the
same thing that you state in your text. The only specific
you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the
Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly
said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere
you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting
instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising
this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions
above so you can answer them if you want to continue.
Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error
you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can
understand your that.

George

You realise you reached a new low by answering your own points and
pretending I wrote them but it does'nt matter anyway,I work on the
same principle that it is nearly impossible to change creationist-type
tendencies and relativity as it is based on siderealism is no better
or worse than the creationist cult.

For all the century's worth of hoopla,you followed the ideas of a man
and his followers who based models on siderealism,a poor mixture of
geocentrism and heliocentrism.I can only hope others will reach the
same conclusion.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"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
...

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

Why do you think the page is wrong?


Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you
are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth in
accordance with your siderealist view.

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


http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm


You are fortunate that you can still be a siderealist which is a more
accurate description of a relativist even if others have yet to figure
out just how creationistlike the whole thing is and I assure you it is
not that difficult.




....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path

Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the
top of this post you will find I said:

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,

Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you
insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I
deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence
specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it
varies?

Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true?

According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees
in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time
at aphelion.

Do you agree with these values?

nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the
sidereal figure.

Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day
is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously
know that so why suggest it is?

Again why do you write something you know is not true?

The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no
distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal
representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the
EoT elsewhere.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page
you quote both in the text and the diagram:

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif

I guess there is nothing left to say, ...

If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed
nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the
standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim,
the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the
same thing that you state in your text. The only specific
you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the
Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly
said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere
you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting
instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising
this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions
above so you can answer them if you want to continue.
Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error
you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can
understand your that.

George

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

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's
clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment
with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems
that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I
can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

Why do you think the page is wrong?

....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path

Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the
top of this post you will find I said:

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,

Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you
insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I
deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence
specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it
varies?

Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true?

According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees
in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time
at aphelion.

Do you agree with these values?

nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify
the
sidereal figure.

Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day
is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously
know that so why suggest it is?

Again why do you write something you know is not true?

The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no
distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal
representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the
EoT elsewhere.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page
you quote both in the text and the diagram:

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif

I guess there is nothing left to say, ...

If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed
nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the
standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim,
the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the
same thing that you state in your text. The only specific
you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the
Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly
said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere
you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting
instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising
this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions
above so you can answer them if you want to continue.
Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error
you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can
understand your that.

George

You realise you reached a new low by answering your own points and
pretending I wrote them ...

Do you have some sort of reading problem? I am asking _you_
questions and waiting for _you_ to answer:

1. Why do _you_ think the NMM page is wrong when the
mechanism illustrated is identical to the description
you gave yourself?

2. Why do you accuse me of saying the angle moved per day
is a constant 0.986 degrees when I already told you that
I know it varies?

3. Specifically I think the angle moved in, for example, 24h
varies between 0.953 degrees and 1.019 degrees according
to Kepler's Second Law. Over what range do _you_ think it
varies? State it as a distance or an angle, whichever you
like.

4. Why did you suggest the sidereal day is defined by solar
alignment when you already know it isn't?

I am still waiting to hear _your_ answers to these questions.

George

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

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's
clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment
with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems
that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I
can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

Why do you think the page is wrong?


Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you
are happy with the constant orbital displacement
^^^^^^^^
Still trying to peddle the same old lie, eh? If you are serious,
you are only emphasising how little you know of astronomy.

of the Earth in
accordance with your siderealist view.

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


http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif

So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided
answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages?
Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong
is completely pointless.

George

George Dishman replied to Gerald Kelleher:

Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope
you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth
in accordance with your siderealist view.

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

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm

So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided
answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages?
Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong
is completely pointless.

It appears that he posted links to those pages because he agrees
with the information on them.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"Jeff Root" wrote in message
om...
George Dishman replied to Gerald Kelleher:

Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope
you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth
in accordance with your siderealist view.

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

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm

So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided
answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages?
Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong
is completely pointless.

It appears that he posted links to those pages because he agrees
with the information on them.

It's hard to tell but I don't think so. That was his answer to
this question:

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

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's
clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment
with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems
that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I
can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000
....
Why do you think the page is wrong?

so he said "the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and
orbital motion is all wrong" but has never said _why_ he thought
it was wrong.

Also in the post that started this thread he cited two similar
pages and claimed it was impossible to reconcile the two views:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
....
This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,one has to
be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice.

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif


http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif

Of course they are completely compatible as I showed

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif

but as usual when shown to be wrong he just went off on a
tangent rather than admit his error. To be honest, I think
the whole subject is just a little too complex for him.

George

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

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's
clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment
with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems
that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I
can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

Why do you think the page is wrong?


Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you
are happy with the constant orbital displacement
^^^^^^^^
Still trying to peddle the same old lie, eh? If you are serious,
you are only emphasising how little you know of astronomy.

of the Earth in
accordance with your siderealist view.

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


http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif

So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided
answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages?
Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong
is completely pointless.

George

It is called intellectual checkmate,change the positional angles for
the Earth's orbital motion and you no longer have your sidereal day
nor can you link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar
motion,you only other choice is to go back to the sensible
astronomical difference between absolute time and relative time known
as the Equation of Time,at least as Newton phrased it.

Now you still have the other guys looking to aether and all that stuff
but nobody ever bothered to check the good material like the
relationship between clocks,geometry and astronomy.I may have a
problem that I still am the only person here to persevere with the
development of clocks as physical rulers of distance but ultimately it
is well worth the effort.

I am sure now that you won't tether the Earth's rotation directly to
stellar circumpolar motion or 23 hours 56 min, but you can give the
Royal Observatory and the Maritime Museum a hand correcting their
siderealistic views even though,like creationists,it is very difficult
to change these cult views.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jeff Root" wrote in message
om...
George Dishman replied to Gerald Kelleher:

Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope
you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth
in accordance with your siderealist view.

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

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm

So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided
answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages?
Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong
is completely pointless.

It appears that he posted links to those pages because he agrees
with the information on them.

It's hard to tell but I don't think so. That was his answer to
this question:

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

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's
clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment
with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems
that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I
can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000
...
Why do you think the page is wrong?

so he said "the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and
orbital motion is all wrong" but has never said _why_ he thought
it was wrong.

Also in the post that started this thread he cited two similar
pages and claimed it was impossible to reconcile the two views:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
...
This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,one has to
be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice.

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif


http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif

Of course they are completely compatible as I showed

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif

but as usual when shown to be wrong he just went off on a
tangent rather than admit his error. To be honest, I think
the whole subject is just a little too complex for him.

George

George

It often happens that with creationist/siderealist tendencies you are
incapable of noticing that the apical angles are not a constant .986
degrees in your above graphic.In truth,if there were any genuine
people here,they would have spotted the flaw instantly as it is not
difficult at all to note that relativity is based on siderealism but
unfortunately it seems I am alone on this one.

I am afraid you suffer a bad case of relativistic indoctrination but
are surprisingly more adaptable than other unfortunates,it appears you
are akin to creationists insofar as they deny evolution but they
themselves and their arguments evolved.Faced with cult thinking is
uncomfortable for me and I can only go so far with it but that
siderealism based on relativity is a genuine belief,a strange mixture
of geocentrism and heliocentrism is probably the only thing worth
noting in my years here.

It is my problem,not yours.