No standard

Robert Geake wrote:
wrote:
Astronomers you ain't,that much is certain.Even if you hijack the
title
and others do not notice you are little more than cataloguers.

An astronomer has the final say on what works and what does'nt,the
very
fact is that my astronomical heritage is in the hands of a bunch
of
mathematical freaks who could'nt make an observation to save their
lives let alone distinguish between perceived motions from Earth
and
actual motions.

Powerful telescopes supply more data but they are worthless in the
hands of theorists and it has been that way for centuries.Passing
on
Newton's empirical illness to future generations assures that
astronomy
will eventually die in all but name for the theorists have left you
nothing left to observe.

Good enough for people who have no standards , no sense of the
scale
and majesty of the cosmos and no way to pass that on to future
generations.

Chaps and Trolls alike!

Min, now there's a card

Anyway what is this human going on about surely things such as this
rotational theory jobbie wasname is in the realm of the
astrophysicist
not a meer looker through a telescope such as me(didnt want to brand
myself an astronomer incase he got all riled again ?

I look through my scope and enjoy what i see! How can one claim to
have(or indeed, lack) standards???

Some people really should learn to be quiet....

Rob

I only wish the English public knew how ****ing insane you lot are and
how many of their kids were exposed to indoctrination that you freaks
think is education.

You will make excuses for the NMM nonsensical explanation and expect
kids to follow it when it is pure and utter ****e.

"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361=BA with respect to the
background stars."


http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

Even the creationists are beacons of intelligence compared to you lot.

In article .com,
burbled happily...

I only wish the English public knew how ****ing insane you lot are and
how many of their kids were exposed to indoctrination that you freaks
think is education.

If the alternative form of education produces muppets like you, then I
know where my trust lies. Now off you go, back under your stone.
--
Craig Oldfield

New Metropolis
Feb 24 2085

Dear Gerald

As a regular time-traveller I can assure you that your trolls remain
largely unexplained far into the beginning of next week.
While you may consider exchanging such "pleasantries" strengthens your
argument, I feel it only fair to point out that it takes someone a bit
brighter than a young carp to pull the fishing line over our eyes.
Eccentric views of the universe are always welcome. (We enjoy a good
laugh now and then!) Provided you can give us corroberated
observational evidence or mathematical proof. Or preferably publication
of your ideas in a peer-reviewed scientific publication like "Nature".
And no more of that Einsteinian nonsense, thankyou very much. We don't
go in much for early 20th Century art around here! We have moved on!

Yours most sincerely
Chris.B Esq.

The Equation of Time format works off the difference between axial and
orbital motion using the Sun as a reference while the sidereal format
is a later offshoot (Flamsteed) which works off the average combined
motions of the Earth (up to and including a leap day) .

Newton,while accurately commenting on the Equation of Time in Roemer's
use of it for the anomalous motion of Jupiter's satellite Io and in
that there is no external reference for axial rotation and the 24 hour
clock (hence the Equation of Time which removes the orbital inequality)


"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. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the true, or
equable, progress of absolute time is liable to no change. The duration
or perseverance of the existence of things remains the same, whether
the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and therefore, it ought
to be distinguished from what are only sensible measures thereof; and
out of which we collect it, by means of the astronomical equation. The
necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a
ph=E6nomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum
clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter."


http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html

Because Newton intentionally switches from the Equation of Time format
and the accurate astronomical content of constant axial
rotation/variable orbital motion to the astronomically innaccurate
sidereal format,mathematicians assume that absolute/relative time is
some metaphysical concept when it is not.Surely as an astronomer you
are bound to catch something of the outlines of a deeply buried flaw in
Newton's conceptions that were exploited for the most spurious reasons
in the early 20th century.

Furthermore Newton scrambles not only axial and orbital motion into a
single sidereal motion,he combines the Roemerian insight on finite
light distance with Keplerian motion.









"PH=C6NOMENON V.
Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
Principia

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

Everything hinges on that error which can be traced back to Flamsteed
and wittingly or unwittingly adopted by Newton.That's how big all this
is so excuse me while I withdraw.

I have been fortunate enough to meet those rare individuals who make
allowances for my expressive shortcomings and don't make a bit deal of
it,.

I strongly suggest that if you wish to appreaceate eccentric views of
the Universe then Newton is your man.While explaining planetary motion
via terrestial ballistics is not a bad shot, the astronomical
adjustments (cooking the books) Newton made come at an enormous cost.

Without the input of English astronomy it will be extremely difficult
to pull back from the excesses of relativistic concepts and while you
may not give me credit for anything at least I recognise that.

"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361º with respect to the
background stars."

Don't take our word for it, go out and time it for yourself.
jc


--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

I have been fortunate enough to meet those rare individuals who make
allowances for my expressive shortcomings and don't make a bit deal of
it,.

They would be your inbred cousins perhaps ?
From the way you express yourself I must assume that you are either 4
years old or american. Do please make the effort to post in English,
there's a good chap.
jc


--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

In message , John Carruthers
writes
"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361º with respect to the
background stars."

Don't take our word for it, go out and time it for yourself.
jc

Speaking of which (well, sort of), has anyone ever taken a star trails
photograph showing a complete circle?

Oh, blow it out your ears.

That isn't where he is blowing it out of.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

In message .com,
writes

snip.

It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby
time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and
retarded, but the true, or equable, progress of absolute time is liable
to no change.

Fascinating :-) Was Newton thinking about relativity? (I've been told he
wasn't, but I can't find the reference)


Everything hinges on that error which can be traced back to Flamsteed
and wittingly or unwittingly adopted by Newton.That's how big all this
is so excuse me while I withdraw.


I wish.
You've been posting this same passage for years, and I had completely
forgotten I had replied to an earlier post on this group about 18 months
ago :-)