What an awful mistake

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

snip comments to jeff

"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.

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.

Look at the bottom of the graphic where you will find:

"Angle A-Sun-B is greater than angle Y-Sun-X"

It is my problem,not yours.

Yes.

However, I too have made a mistake. The final line should
say "Both angles are approximately 1 degree." instead of
"slightly less than". The version showing the extremes is
explicit:

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

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
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,

I know. The winning move was when I got you to admit the
rate of rotation of the Earth was constant:

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

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

The rest is straitforward:

change the positional angles for
the Earth's orbital motion and you no longer have your sidereal day

Wrong, the sidereal day is the time it takes the Earth to
rotate on its axis by 360 degrees. Since 360 degrees is a
constant angle and, as you have now admitted, the Earth
rotates at a constant rate, the sidereal day has a constant
duration. QED.

The value is calculated below.

nor can you link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar
motion,

The movement of the stars is generally small enough to allow
their use as an adequate approximate measure.

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.

A rose by any other name .....

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.

Read the following carefully Gerald, one step at a time and look
at http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif
at each step to make sure you follow what I am saying this time.

Before we start, in case it's not obvious, "A" is when the earth
is nearest to the Sun (perihelion) and "X" is when the Earth is
furthest from the Sun (aphelion).

Consider the Earth moving from "A" to "B" between noon one day
and noon the next. If you apply Kepler's laws, you find it moves
through 1.019 degrees along its orbit. That is the angle between
the line from "A" to the Sun (which I call 'line A-Sun') and that
from "B" to the Sun ('line B-Sun').

Line B-B' is defined as being parallel to line A-Sun.

The angle between line B-B' and line B-Sun must also be 1.019
degrees.

When the Earth is at "A", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line A-Sun.

One sidereal day later, the Earth has turned through exactly 360
degrees so the Greenwich Meridian is aligned with line B-B', but
it is not aligned with the Sun.

When the Earth is at "B", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line B-Sun.

Between noon (of the solar day) at "A" and noon at "B" the Earth
has had to turn through 361.019 degrees.

Are you still following this?

Now do the same for "X" and "Y".

Kepler says the green segment has the same area as the blue segment
but the radius is greater so the distance moved along the orbit is
smaller and the angle subtended at the Sun between line X-Sujn and
line Y-Sun is also smaller. It is only 0.953 degrees.

Line Y-Y' is defined as being parallel to line X-Sun.

The angle between line Y-Y' and line Y-Sun must also be 0.953
degrees.

When the Earth is at "X", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line X-Sun.

One sidereal day later, the Earth has turned through exactly 360
degrees so the Greenwich Meridian is aligned with line Y-Y', but
it is not aligned with the Sun.

When the Earth is at "Y", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line Y-Sun.

Between noon (of the solar day) at "X" and noon at "Y" the Earth
has had to turn through 360.953 degrees.

Now you have agreed that the Earth turns at a constant rate so
obviously the solar day is longer at A than it is at B because
the Earth has to turn through 361.019 degrees compared to 360.953
degrees.

It would be very inconvenient if we had to adjust our clocks to
tick slower at perihelion and faster at aphelion so instead we
choose to use the average rate, keep the clocks ticking steadily
and have a little misaligment against the Sun at noon. That way
noon occurs in daylight this year, next year and every year.

The average that the Earth has to turn must obviously be somewhere
between 361.019 degrees and 360.953 degrees and it is in fact
360.986 degrees.

So our civil clocks are defined quite simply: 24 hours is the time
it takes the earth to rotate by the mean amount of 360.986 degrees.

The time it takes the Earth to rotate by exactly 360 degrees is
then simply proportional (since it rotates at a constant rate).
The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Now what about the EoT?

When the Earth is at perihelion, the Earth has to turn through
361.019 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
8.0 seconds more than 24h, so each day noon the alignment slips
8.0 seconds later against civil clocks.

When the Earth is at aphelion, the Earth has to turn through
360.953 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
7.2 seconds less than 24h, so each day the alignment moves
7.2 seconds forward against civil clocks.

http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Ellipt...OrbitMath.html

So there you are gerald, now tell me what you think is
inconsistent with that. All of this is compatible with all
the web pages you have suggested I look at so it is up to
you to say where you imagine the error lies.

George

Gerald Kelleher replied to George Dishman:

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

the apical angles are not a constant .986 degrees in your
above graphic.

George has told you that at least 20 times this year, including
at least five times in this thread. You only just noticed?

George Dishman to Gerald Kelleher, October 28:

| The graphic shows a larger angle is subtended at the
| Sun for the blue sector than the green in order to keep
| the areas the same in accordance with Kepler's Second Law.
| ...
| Kepler's Second Law says A is the same for any given duration
| so when the radius, r, is larger (for the green area), the
| angle, a, must be smaller to satify Kepler's Second Law. Both
| are roughly 1 degree but they are not quite the same so the
| angle is not constant from day to day.

By the way, you are using the term "apical" incorrectly.
It has no meaning the way you are using it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"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
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,

I know. The winning move was when I got you to admit the
rate of rotation of the Earth was constant:

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

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

The rest is straitforward:

change the positional angles for
the Earth's orbital motion and you no longer have your sidereal day

Wrong, the sidereal day is the time it takes the Earth to
rotate on its axis by 360 degrees. Since 360 degrees is a
constant angle and, as you have now admitted, the Earth
rotates at a constant rate, the sidereal day has a constant
duration. QED.


The pace of a 24 hour clock is based on the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees this is what is known as a 'day',if you like
Monday,Tuesday wednesday...The natural day is unequal as determined by
meridian alignment with the Sun,the difference between the natural day
and the 24 hour clock day is the EoT,the equalising by the appropriate
addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds over the course of an
annual orbit.There is no reference whatsover to the other stars for
none is required.

Based on the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours using
the Sun as a reference you can then set the pace of everything else
including the sidereal value,what you cannot do is directly link the
Earth's rotation through 360 degrees to stellar circumpolar motion and
unfortunately this is what you and your relativistic colleagues do.



The value is calculated below.

nor can you link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar
motion,

The movement of the stars is generally small enough to allow
their use as an adequate approximate measure.


There is absolutely no difficulty whatsover with the development of
clocks based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24
hours using the Sun as a reference and the Equation of Time as the
necessary computation which equalises the variation in the natural
day,I mean it is that simple you have to go out of your way to try and
pretend it does'nt exist.




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.

A rose by any other name .....



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.

Read the following carefully Gerald, one step at a time and look
at http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif
at each step to make sure you follow what I am saying this time.

Before we start, in case it's not obvious, "A" is when the earth
is nearest to the Sun (perihelion) and "X" is when the Earth is
furthest from the Sun (aphelion).

Consider the Earth moving from "A" to "B" between noon one day
and noon the next. If you apply Kepler's laws, you find it moves
through 1.019 degrees along its orbit. That is the angle between
the line from "A" to the Sun (which I call 'line A-Sun') and that
from "B" to the Sun ('line B-Sun').

Line B-B' is defined as being parallel to line A-Sun.

The angle between line B-B' and line B-Sun must also be 1.019
degrees.

When the Earth is at "A", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line A-Sun.

One sidereal day later, the Earth has turned through exactly 360
degrees so the Greenwich Meridian is aligned with line B-B', but
it is not aligned with the Sun.

When the Earth is at "B", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line B-Sun.

Between noon (of the solar day) at "A" and noon at "B" the Earth
has had to turn through 361.019 degrees.

Are you still following this?


Funny,funny,funny,I guess your Earth turns through 361 degrees but the
EoT only recognises 360 degrees,with each meridian alignment at noon
when the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly,you apply the EoT to
equalise the natural day to the constant clock day.Maybe as you are a
spacetime cadet you can get an object to rotate through 361 degrees
but then you do believe in all sorts of odd stuff,361 degrees indeed
!,grow up for goodness sake.


Now do the same for "X" and "Y".

Kepler says the green segment has the same area as the blue segment
but the radius is greater so the distance moved along the orbit is
smaller and the angle subtended at the Sun between line X-Sujn and
line Y-Sun is also smaller. It is only 0.953 degrees.

Line Y-Y' is defined as being parallel to line X-Sun.

The angle between line Y-Y' and line Y-Sun must also be 0.953
degrees.

When the Earth is at "X", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line X-Sun.

One sidereal day later, the Earth has turned through exactly 360
degrees so the Greenwich Meridian is aligned with line Y-Y', but
it is not aligned with the Sun.


You are still tethering the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees using
a clock tied to stellar circumpolar motion and that is the
astronomical version of creationism known as siderealism.

Let me show you how Einstein now makes you look like a fool.

"Now if we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to
the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a
circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a
result which is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html


Sorry George,that is siderealism and as I explained to Randy,I do not
correspond with siderealists.




When the Earth is at "Y", at noon of the solar day the Greenwich
Meridian is aligned with line Y-Sun.

Between noon (of the solar day) at "X" and noon at "Y" the Earth
has had to turn through 360.953 degrees.

Now you have agreed that the Earth turns at a constant rate so
obviously the solar day is longer at A than it is at B because
the Earth has to turn through 361.019 degrees compared to 360.953
degrees.

It would be very inconvenient if we had to adjust our clocks to
tick slower at perihelion and faster at aphelion so instead we
choose to use the average rate, keep the clocks ticking steadily
and have a little misaligment against the Sun at noon. That way
noon occurs in daylight this year, next year and every year.


Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.The natural variation in
this occurence for each axial rotation is equalised by the EoT,this is
why Harrison aimed for a constant clock rate in spite of the fact that
naturally there is no constant observed rate corresponding to 24
hours.




The average that the Earth has to turn must obviously be somewhere
between 361.019 degrees and 360.953 degrees and it is in fact
360.986 degrees.

So our civil clocks are defined quite simply: 24 hours is the time
it takes the earth to rotate by the mean amount of 360.986 degrees.

The time it takes the Earth to rotate by exactly 360 degrees is
then simply proportional (since it rotates at a constant rate).
The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.


Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this even though every historical and observational and technological
evidence determines that clock rate is based on the Earth rotation on
its axis through 360 degrees.You can set steller circumpolar motion
off the Earth's rotation in 24 hrs/360 degrees but it turns my stomach
to think that I have yet to get support on this issue while you
relativistic numbskulls are running riot with models based on
siderealism.



Now what about the EoT?

When the Earth is at perihelion, the Earth has to turn through
361.019 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
8.0 seconds more than 24h, so each day noon the alignment slips
8.0 seconds later against civil clocks.

When the Earth is at aphelion, the Earth has to turn through
360.953 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
7.2 seconds less than 24h, so each day the alignment moves
7.2 seconds forward against civil clocks.

http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Ellipt...OrbitMath.html


I have told you before,the analemma is a hideous attempt to fit the
Equation of Time into the astronomical day,the Equation of Time
defines the 24 hour clock day off the unequal natural day using
meridian alignments and the Sun as a reference therefore and by
definition,you cannot fit or represent the EoT within the 24 hour
astronomical day.The analemma does exactly that and it is incorrect.




So there you are gerald, now tell me what you think is
inconsistent with that. All of this is compatible with all
the web pages you have suggested I look at so it is up to
you to say where you imagine the error lies.

George

If you are talking of the Earth rotating through 361 degrees I cannot
imagine what is going on inside your head,the Earth can only rotate
through 360 degrees and therein is the key to understanding the
EoT.You are attempting to find me wrong when half the world knows that
accurate clocks were developed based on the Earth's rotation on its
axis and through 360 degrees in 24 hours.I guess this is what makes
you comparable to a creationist.

http://www.sailtexas.com/long.html

Gerald, I am going to snip a lot to get to the core of
the problem:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

The pace of a 24 hour clock is based on the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees this is what is known as a 'day',if you like
Monday,Tuesday wednesday

See later.

...The natural day is unequal as determined by
meridian alignment with the Sun,

True, and that is the key. For all of the evolution of humanity
we have been governed by the cycle of night and day and it is
the alignment with the Sun that governs that. Our 24 hour day
is still based on that alignment but because we choose to have
a uniform duration for our clock day, we defined 24 hours as
the average duration of the natural day.

the difference between the natural day
and the 24 hour clock day is the EoT,

Also true.

the equalising by the appropriate
addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds over the course of an
annual orbit.There is no reference whatsover to the other stars for
none is required.

And again that is also true.

Based on the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours using
the Sun as a reference

Part of the difficulty of holding a conversation with you is that
you sometimes cram too many ideas into one sentence. What I think
you meant is just "Based on defining the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees as 24 hours .." but you might have meant "Based on
defining 24 hours using the Sun as a reference ..". Don't reply
yet but keep reading as this is the crux of the problem and I'll
expalin what I mean later.

you can then set the pace of everything else
including the sidereal value,what you cannot do is directly link the
Earth's rotation through 360 degrees to stellar circumpolar motion and
unfortunately this is what you and your relativistic colleagues do.

No it isn't, the sidereal day is defined by geometry as you
will see below.

There is absolutely no difficulty whatsover with the development of
clocks based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24
hours using the Sun as a reference

Again see below.

Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.

That is correct, we agree. Keep that in mind, it is the most
important thing you have said so far.

The natural variation in
this occurence for each axial rotation is equalised by the EoT,this is
why Harrison aimed for a constant clock rate in spite of the fact that
naturally there is no constant observed rate corresponding to 24
hours.

Your use of the word "equalised" is unconventional, "described"
would be more accurate, but again you have the right idea.

The average that the Earth has to turn must obviously be somewhere
between 361.019 degrees and 360.953 degrees and it is in fact
360.986 degrees.

So our civil clocks are defined quite simply: 24 hours is the time
it takes the earth to rotate by the mean amount of 360.986 degrees.

The time it takes the Earth to rotate by exactly 360 degrees is
then simply proportional (since it rotates at a constant rate).
The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this

Later you said:

If you are talking of the Earth rotating through 361 degrees I cannot
imagine what is going on inside your head,

I realise that, but you won't understand until you lay aside
your own ideas long enough to follow what I am saying. You
have responded to every part of my post by simply stating
your own views without apparently making any attempt to
follow what I was saying. Try to look at the next section and
especially the pictures until you understand _my_ version
before jumping in to respond this time.

the Earth can only rotate
through 360 degrees and therein is the key to understanding the
EoT.

So how far does the Earth rotate in 6 hours? I hope you would
say something like 90 degrees if you think it turns 360 degrees
in 24 hours and turns at a constant rate. So far we have talked
only of whole days and perhaps that was masking the problem.
This diagram shows steps of 90 degrees rotation through a day:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg.gif

You said:
Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.

That is shown at "A" with the yellow line indicating the meridian.

Between "A" and "B" the Earth turns through exactly 90 degrees.
This is not defined in relation to the stars or the sun or any
other external reference, it is defined _geometrically_ like this

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg_ext.gif

Now do that three more times and the Earth has turned through
360 degrees. That is shown at "E", but look carefully Gerald,
the meridian no longer points at the Sun because of the
distance it has moved round its orbit. So you could define the
day by using alignments with the Sun or you could use 360 degrees
but you _cannot_ use both, they are different. Now please don't
respond until you understand what I am saying in those diagrams.
The Earth can never, ever turn through 360 degrees between
meridian alignments with the Sun. Historically we chose to use
the average time between alignments for civil time, we call it
the Mean Solar Day and define 24 hours based on that, which
means that it _cannot_ be equated to rotation by 360 degrees
by the simple geometry in the diagrams.

The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this

It is what Newton, Kepler, Flamsteed, even Maskelyne, and every
astronomer since then has believed. Copernicus would have agreed
qualitatively, though without Kepler's equations he could not
have agreed my maths.

Now what about the EoT?

When the Earth is at perihelion, the Earth has to turn through
361.019 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
8.0 seconds more than 24h, so each day noon the alignment slips
8.0 seconds later against civil clocks.

When the Earth is at aphelion, the Earth has to turn through
360.953 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
7.2 seconds less than 24h, so each day the alignment moves
7.2 seconds forward against civil clocks.


http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Ellipt...OrbitMath.html


I have told you before,the analemma is a hideous attempt to fit the
Equation of Time into the astronomical day, ... The analemma does
exactly that and it is incorrect.

No Gerald, the analemma is what we see when we plot the positions
of the Sun on the sky through the year. It is _observed_ and is
therefore not open to debate. The EoT is our attempt to describe
and understand that observation. This is the mistake that
discredited philosophers, the idea that if the world doesn't match
your expectations, the world must be wrong because logical thought
was infallible. Well the world just refused to accomodate them, so
if you don't like the analemma, tough luck, go and observe it, and
you might start to become an astronomer.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
Gerald, I am going to snip a lot to get to the core of
the problem:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

The pace of a 24 hour clock is based on the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees this is what is known as a 'day',if you like
Monday,Tuesday wednesday

See later.

...The natural day is unequal as determined by
meridian alignment with the Sun,

True, and that is the key. For all of the evolution of humanity
we have been governed by the cycle of night and day and it is
the alignment with the Sun that governs that. Our 24 hour day
is still based on that alignment but because we choose to have
a uniform duration for our clock day, we defined 24 hours as
the average duration of the natural day.

the difference between the natural day
and the 24 hour clock day is the EoT,

Also true.

the equalising by the appropriate
addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds over the course of an
annual orbit.There is no reference whatsover to the other stars for
none is required.

And again that is also true.

Based on the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours using
the Sun as a reference

Part of the difficulty of holding a conversation with you is that
you sometimes cram too many ideas into one sentence. What I think
you meant is just "Based on defining the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees as 24 hours .." but you might have meant "Based on
defining 24 hours using the Sun as a reference ..". Don't reply
yet but keep reading as this is the crux of the problem and I'll
expalin what I mean later.

you can then set the pace of everything else
including the sidereal value,what you cannot do is directly link the
Earth's rotation through 360 degrees to stellar circumpolar motion and
unfortunately this is what you and your relativistic colleagues do.

No it isn't, the sidereal day is defined by geometry as you
will see below.

There is absolutely no difficulty whatsover with the development of
clocks based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24
hours using the Sun as a reference

Again see below.

Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.

That is correct, we agree. Keep that in mind, it is the most
important thing you have said so far.

The natural variation in
this occurence for each axial rotation is equalised by the EoT,this is
why Harrison aimed for a constant clock rate in spite of the fact that
naturally there is no constant observed rate corresponding to 24
hours.

Your use of the word "equalised" is unconventional, "described"
would be more accurate, but again you have the right idea.

The average that the Earth has to turn must obviously be somewhere
between 361.019 degrees and 360.953 degrees and it is in fact
360.986 degrees.

So our civil clocks are defined quite simply: 24 hours is the time
it takes the earth to rotate by the mean amount of 360.986 degrees.

The time it takes the Earth to rotate by exactly 360 degrees is
then simply proportional (since it rotates at a constant rate).
The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this

Later you said:

If you are talking of the Earth rotating through 361 degrees I cannot
imagine what is going on inside your head,

I realise that, but you won't understand until you lay aside
your own ideas long enough to follow what I am saying. You
have responded to every part of my post by simply stating
your own views without apparently making any attempt to
follow what I was saying. Try to look at the next section and
especially the pictures until you understand _my_ version
before jumping in to respond this time.

the Earth can only rotate
through 360 degrees and therein is the key to understanding the
EoT.

So how far does the Earth rotate in 6 hours? I hope you would
say something like 90 degrees if you think it turns 360 degrees
in 24 hours and turns at a constant rate. So far we have talked
only of whole days and perhaps that was masking the problem.
This diagram shows steps of 90 degrees rotation through a day:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg.gif

You said:
Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.

That is shown at "A" with the yellow line indicating the meridian.

Between "A" and "B" the Earth turns through exactly 90 degrees.
This is not defined in relation to the stars or the sun or any
other external reference, it is defined _geometrically_ like this

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg_ext.gif

Now do that three more times and the Earth has turned through
360 degrees. That is shown at "E", but look carefully Gerald,
the meridian no longer points at the Sun because of the
distance it has moved round its orbit. So you could define the
day by using alignments with the Sun or you could use 360 degrees
but you _cannot_ use both, they are different. Now please don't
respond until you understand what I am saying in those diagrams.
The Earth can never, ever turn through 360 degrees between
meridian alignments with the Sun. Historically we chose to use
the average time between alignments for civil time, we call it
the Mean Solar Day and define 24 hours based on that, which
means that it _cannot_ be equated to rotation by 360 degrees
by the simple geometry in the diagrams.

The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this

It is what Newton, Kepler, Flamsteed, even Maskelyne, and every
astronomer since then has believed. Copernicus would have agreed
qualitatively, though without Kepler's equations he could not
have agreed my maths.

Now what about the EoT?

When the Earth is at perihelion, the Earth has to turn through
361.019 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
8.0 seconds more than 24h, so each day noon the alignment slips
8.0 seconds later against civil clocks.

When the Earth is at aphelion, the Earth has to turn through
360.953 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
7.2 seconds less than 24h, so each day the alignment moves
7.2 seconds forward against civil clocks.



http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Ellipt...OrbitMath.html


I have told you before,the analemma is a hideous attempt to fit the
Equation of Time into the astronomical day, ... The analemma does
exactly that and it is incorrect.

No Gerald, the analemma is what we see when we plot the positions
of the Sun on the sky through the year. It is _observed_ and is
therefore not open to debate. The EoT is our attempt to describe
and understand that observation. This is the mistake that
discredited philosophers, the idea that if the world doesn't match
your expectations, the world must be wrong because logical thought
was infallible. Well the world just refused to accomodate them, so
if you don't like the analemma, tough luck, go and observe it, and
you might start to become an astronomer.

George




I admire your patience. Don't you think it's time to give up?

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...

I admire your patience. Don't you think it's time to give up?

That time passed long ago. As Gerald suggested, it is more
of a chess game now. I am curious to understand what his
model of the solar system is really like but if I ask a
direct question he refuses to answer and changes the subject
instead. The trick is to ask him the wrong question so that
he tells you what you want to know instead of answering. It's
an odd game but I find it exercises my mental dexterity.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Gerald, I am going to snip a lot to get to the core of
the problem:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

The pace of a 24 hour clock is based on the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees this is what is known as a 'day',if you like
Monday,Tuesday wednesday

See later.

...The natural day is unequal as determined by
meridian alignment with the Sun,

True, and that is the key. For all of the evolution of humanity
we have been governed by the cycle of night and day and it is
the alignment with the Sun that governs that. Our 24 hour day
is still based on that alignment but because we choose to have
a uniform duration for our clock day, we defined 24 hours as
the average duration of the natural day.

the difference between the natural day
and the 24 hour clock day is the EoT,

Also true.


"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"


the equalising by the appropriate
addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds over the course of an
annual orbit.There is no reference whatsover to the other stars for
none is required.

And again that is also true.


"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"


Based on the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours using
the Sun as a reference

Part of the difficulty of holding a conversation with you is that
you sometimes cram too many ideas into one sentence. What I think
you meant is just "Based on defining the Earth's rotation through
360 degrees as 24 hours .." but you might have meant "Based on
defining 24 hours using the Sun as a reference ..". Don't reply
yet but keep reading as this is the crux of the problem and I'll
expalin what I mean later.


The crux of the problem is based on first principles,the evolution of
the Earth took billions of years,the Earth orbits the Sun and the
rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours.Any
deviation from these principles generates geocentrism,creationism and
siderealism.Siderealism is linking the Earth's rotation directly to
circumpolar motion and your relativistic outlook is entirely
siderealistic.



you can then set the pace of everything else
including the sidereal value,what you cannot do is directly link the
Earth's rotation through 360 degrees to stellar circumpolar motion and
unfortunately this is what you and your relativistic colleagues do.

No it isn't, the sidereal day is defined by geometry as you
will see below.




There is absolutely no difficulty whatsover with the development of
clocks based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24
hours using the Sun as a reference

Again see below.

Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.

That is correct, we agree. Keep that in mind, it is the most
important thing you have said so far.

The natural variation in
this occurence for each axial rotation is equalised by the EoT,this is
why Harrison aimed for a constant clock rate in spite of the fact that
naturally there is no constant observed rate corresponding to 24
hours.

Your use of the word "equalised" is unconventional, "described"
would be more accurate, but again you have the right idea.


Determining that the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours
56 min is not only unconventional it is a destructive in the
extreme,it can only indicate the thinking of a cult with all the same
attributes.


The average that the Earth has to turn must obviously be somewhere
between 361.019 degrees and 360.953 degrees and it is in fact
360.986 degrees.

So our civil clocks are defined quite simply: 24 hours is the time
it takes the earth to rotate by the mean amount of 360.986 degrees.

The time it takes the Earth to rotate by exactly 360 degrees is
then simply proportional (since it rotates at a constant rate).
The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this

Later you said:

If you are talking of the Earth rotating through 361 degrees I cannot
imagine what is going on inside your head,

I realise that, but you won't understand until you lay aside
your own ideas long enough to follow what I am saying. You
have responded to every part of my post by simply stating
your own views without apparently making any attempt to
follow what I was saying. Try to look at the next section and
especially the pictures until you understand _my_ version
before jumping in to respond this time.


What I do is draw conclusions based on first principles,these
principles are so basic that it cannot be reduced further.The
relativistic concept bases its premises on a deviation from Newton's
terms of the difference between the natural unequal day and the 24
hour clock day as the distinction between absolute time and relative
time,perhaps his phrasing could be better but ultimately he is
presenting the mathematical computation which reduces the natural
inequality to an artificial equality via the EoT.The Lat/Long grid
system,although it is an abstract division of the geometry of the
Earth into a 24 hour/360 degree equivalency,these abstractions are
overlayed geometrically and geographically on a rotating Earth.You may
divide the Earth into 360 longitude meridians and the GPS system is
capable of dividing it into millions but funamentally the equaivalency
of clock time and distance remains equivalent.


the Earth can only rotate
through 360 degrees and therein is the key to understanding the
EoT.

So how far does the Earth rotate in 6 hours? I hope you would
say something like 90 degrees if you think it turns 360 degrees
in 24 hours and turns at a constant rate. So far we have talked
only of whole days and perhaps that was masking the problem.
This diagram shows steps of 90 degrees rotation through a day:


Clocks register the pace of the Earth through 90 degrees in 6
hours.There is no natural pace corresponding to 6 hours/90 degrees
however the meridian alignment at noon when the natural unequal pace
of a day is equalised to a 24 hour clock day and the EoT maintains the
seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next should indicate
to a rational person that the 'day' is the fundamental unit,this unit
can be divided into subvisions of hours,minutes,seconds in one
direction and weeks and years in the other direction.

You are using siderealistic terms such as dusk,sunset,sunrise which is
quasi-geocentric,I place emphasis on the Earth's motion using the Sun
as a reference to standardise the concept of a 24 hour day,the pace of
this day sets the pace of everything else including stellar
circumpolar motion of 23 hours 56 min.Unfortunately you and your
colleagues violate first principles and determine the sidereal value
as reflection of the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees.A
creationist will create elaborate scenarios to maintain the evolution
of life in a short span but it appears you display the same tendency.



http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg.gif

You said:
Noon is a relative term for a geometric occurence,the precise
definition of 'noon' is a longitudinal meridian alignment with the Sun
as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly.

That is shown at "A" with the yellow line indicating the meridian.

Between "A" and "B" the Earth turns through exactly 90 degrees.
This is not defined in relation to the stars or the sun or any
other external reference, it is defined _geometrically_ like this

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg_ext.gif

Now do that three more times and the Earth has turned through
360 degrees. That is shown at "E", but look carefully Gerald,
the meridian no longer points at the Sun because of the
distance it has moved round its orbit. So you could define the
day by using alignments with the Sun or you could use 360 degrees
but you _cannot_ use both, they are different. Now please don't
respond until you understand what I am saying in those diagrams.
The Earth can never, ever turn through 360 degrees between
meridian alignments with the Sun. Historically we chose to use
the average time between alignments for civil time, we call it
the Mean Solar Day and define 24 hours based on that, which
means that it _cannot_ be equated to rotation by 360 degrees
by the simple geometry in the diagrams.


Historically and observationally,it is always taken as a given that a
longitude meridian that stretches from pole to pole faces the Sun
directly at any moment.The asymmetry between one axial rotation to the
next is what generates the natural unequal day as determined by
alignment at the meridian,GMT for instance.Somebody at Greenwich
registers the alignment and knows that the next axial rotation will
not be symmeterical with the previous one,however by application of
the EoT the seamless transition from one 24 hour day permits him to
consider that the rotation through 360 degrees from alignment to
alignment takes 24 hours even though the natural alignment varies
against the 24 hour value.

You should now be familiar with the Harrison's clocks and how they
took advantage of the determination of natural noon and how this
determination was translated into the equivalency of 24 hours and 360
degrees via the EoT,for whatever reasons you deviate from this first
principle and suggest that rotation is either 361 degrees for 24 hours
or 360 degrees for 23 hours 56 min.




The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23h 56m 4s.

Unbelievable,I still cannot get comfortable that men would believe
this

It is what Newton, Kepler, Flamsteed, even Maskelyne, and every
astronomer since then has believed. Copernicus would have agreed
qualitatively, though without Kepler's equations he could not
have agreed my maths.


The irony is that it did not dawn on Newton that Flamsteed was
supplying him with celestial information based on the sidereal value
and he could not make head nor tails of the data despite the fact that
Newton uses the older EoT computation to distinguish between absolute
time and relative time.The original pace of a 24 hour day used only
the Sun as a reference for the motions of the Earth while the later
ones adopted the stellar circumpolar motion unfortunately the serious
error is directly modelling the planetary motion directly off the
sidereal value.



Now what about the EoT?

When the Earth is at perihelion, the Earth has to turn through
361.019 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
8.0 seconds more than 24h, so each day noon the alignment slips
8.0 seconds later against civil clocks.

When the Earth is at aphelion, the Earth has to turn through
360.953 degrees between solar alignments and that takes about
7.2 seconds less than 24h, so each day the alignment moves
7.2 seconds forward against civil clocks.


http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Ellipt...OrbitMath.html


I have told you before,the analemma is a hideous attempt to fit the
Equation of Time into the astronomical day, ... The analemma does
exactly that and it is incorrect.

No Gerald, the analemma is what we see when we plot the positions
of the Sun on the sky through the year. It is _observed_ and is
therefore not open to debate.

The analemma is totally useless and without doubt you still have to
experience the thrill of recognising how the natural meridian
alignment at noon translates into a constant 24 hour day even as the
determination of the natural alignment is not symmeterical for each
axial rotation.The EoT is the bridge between the natural noon
determination and the clock noon determination,prior to Newton's era
they could check the accuracy of their clocks off the noon alignment
hence the terms AM and PM.





The EoT is our attempt to describe
and understand that observation. This is the mistake that
discredited philosophers, the idea that if the world doesn't match
your expectations, the world must be wrong because logical thought
was infallible. Well the world just refused to accomodate them, so
if you don't like the analemma, tough luck, go and observe it, and
you might start to become an astronomer.

George

I have been over the material more times than I care to
count,Equatiorial orientation or axial tilt will lenghten and shorten
the shadow cast on a sundial over the course of the Earth's motion in
its annual orbit but this does not affect the pace of the shadow
across the sundial.The EoT is based on the asymmetry between the
determination of noon when the shadow strikes the same line on the
dial (again placing emphasis on the motion of the Earth using the Sun
as a reference) for each axial rotation.The EoT serves the purpose of
equalising the pace to 24 hours and subsequently the subvisions of
this 24 day into hours,minutes and seconds.

You may plot the motion of the Sun but again this is a
quasi-geocentric thing to do,the Sun does not move,the Earth does.You
are welcome to your analemma but as a siderealist (and relativity is
all siderealism) you deviate from the first principle that the
rotation of the Earth is based on the equivalency between 24 hours and
360 degrees,most people can say that without contradiction but the RGO
along with the Maritime Museum adopt the siderealist
perspective.Anyone who bothers to look at the development of clocks
and the longitude problem simply recognises the equivalency whereas
these institutions which possess Harrison's clocks dither around like
you are doing now instead of making an attempt to correct things.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/se...d/005001000002


There may be no rational people left in science but when you witness
such a tepid view of clocks and the longitude problem it may be a good
indication just how desperate things are.

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

I admire your patience. Don't you think it's time to give up?

That time passed long ago. As Gerald suggested, it is more
of a chess game now. I am curious to understand what his
model of the solar system is really like but if I ask a
direct question he refuses to answer and changes the subject
instead. The trick is to ask him the wrong question so that
he tells you what you want to know instead of answering. It's
an odd game but I find it exercises my mental dexterity.

George

It is true that I have become isolated but I would much prefer
isolation than consensual agreement that the Earth rotates through
360 degrees in terms of the sidereal value.The statement that the
Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 24 hours is so basic that any
deviation from it would normally be considered as an indication of a
cult mentality.People understand that the Earth orbits the Sun and its
evolutionary period is billions of years yet there are minority groups
that believe otherwise such as creationisn and geocentrism however
siderealism has snowballed into a majority cult.

For all the linguistic fireworks of your concept it is based on a
quasi-geocentric view of celestial structure and motion,insofar as it
is based on the misinterpretation or perversion of the most basic
principle possible (the equivalency between 24 hours/360 degrees)
under normal circumstances there would be little to talk about no more
than I would correspond with creationists.

It is not my business to consider whether it is some sort of pleasure
working off the wrong principles that you maintain support for
relativistic and by association qm models but they prey on the wider
population who may be unaware that the precise connection between a
clock,geometry and astronomy uses only the Sun as a reference and the
EoT to bridge the gap between the pace of an unequal natural day and a
24 hour clock day.

I will point out to you that 4 years before the rings of SN1987A
appeared I had worked out the geometry of stellar collapse based on
external rings with a point of intersection denoted by a smaller
central ring,I have a copyright on the work but no facility availible
to accept it,not back in 1990 and not now.Because the work relies on
symmetry it is hardly possible to present it to men who speak in terms
of 361 degrees reflecting 24 hours or what amounts to the same thing
360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minj.

Evolutionists play chess with creationists and seem to enjoy
themselves,I enjoy none of it,what I do enjoy is the meticulous and
disciplined work of my predecessors.

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

Determining that the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours
56 min is not only unconventional

You need to open your eyes Gerald, it is not unconventional
at all, it has been known for hundreds of years and there has
been no alternative in that time. Your mistake of equating
longitude with rotation is unique and original as far as I
know. That is why you have always had difficulty communicating
with others in the group, nobody else had any idea what you
were talking about.

You are using siderealistic terms such as dusk,sunset,sunrise which is
quasi-geocentric

They are in fact completely geocentric.

,I place emphasis on the Earth's motion using the Sun

.... as seen from the Earth hence your view is also geocentric.
To understand what is happening, you need to break out of that
straightjacket and consider how the Earth moves in relation to
the Sun, the heliocentric view.

as a reference to standardise the concept of a 24 hour day,the pace of
this day sets the pace of everything else including stellar
circumpolar motion of 23 hours 56 min.Unfortunately you and your
colleagues violate first principles and determine the sidereal value
as reflection of the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees.

The sidereal day can be determined by pure geometry like this:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/90deg_ext.gif

without reference to the sun or stars.

You should now be familiar with the Harrison's clocks and how they
took advantage of the determination of natural noon and how this
determination was translated into the equivalency of 24 hours and 360
degrees via the EoT,for whatever reasons you deviate from this first
principle and suggest that rotation is either 361 degrees for 24 hours
or 360 degrees for 23 hours 56 min.

I take as first principle the rules of geometry. Harrison
understood and used sidereal time, so did Newton.

It is what Newton, Kepler, Flamsteed, even Maskelyne, and every
astronomer since then has believed. Copernicus would have agreed
qualitatively, though without Kepler's equations he could not
have agreed my maths.
....
No Gerald, the analemma is what we see when we plot the positions
of the Sun on the sky through the year. It is _observed_ and is
therefore not open to debate.

The analemma is totally useless

It is observed. It is not open to debate. Deal with it.

I have been over the material more times than I care to
count,

I know and you have learnt nothing, you still make the same
basic error and close your eyes to evidence that proves beyond
any doubt that you are wrong. If you treated other people's
views with some respect and actually tried to understand what
is being said to you, you might gain some respect but I doubt
that will ever happen. Your arrogance is overwhelming.

You may plot the motion of the Sun but again this is a
quasi-geocentric thing to do,the Sun does not move,the Earth does.

Exactly, and that is what I did in every single diagram I
drew, for example:
http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif

The arrow shows the Earth is moving, not the Sun. You
clearly haven't even bothered to look at them. And remember,
this was drawn because you claimed it was impossible.

You
are welcome to your analemma but as a siderealist (and relativity is
all siderealism) you deviate from the first principle that the
rotation of the Earth is based on the equivalency between 24 hours and
360 degrees,

That never was a principle, it is something you alone have
invented and it is wrong. The equivalence is between the clock
and the angle of longitude, not the angle of rotation.

There may be no rational people left in science ..

Your comments are not science, they are philosophy. You have
never shown a single calculation in all the two years or so
we have been chatting and you have been incapable of answer
the simple question I put to test you:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm


George