No standard

wrote:

You useless ****, ... ****ing stupid ... utter ****ing stupidity ...
brainless freaks to **** it up. ... so ****ing stupid ... that ****ing
idiot

It must be wonderful to know you are right but sad to see that
everybody else is wrong. What I can't understand is why that makes you
so obcenely bad tempered. You clearly regard this topic as very
important - young minds are at stake. But I have never found insult a
good means of changing minds and if you wish to achieve anything I do
urge you to drop the insults which just bring the word Tourette to
mind.

Some rational, measured criticisms of your view have been advanced.
Why not try a counter arguments rather than endless repetition of your
bald assertion? Who knows? A rational discussion might develop and all
participants and readers become wiser.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

What do you think this is, a popularity contest or a discussion on who
is right or wrong.

Go outside and put the motions of the Earth and your participations in
those motions into correct perspective and you will never subscribe to
a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency again nor any variation
of it.

Nobody is likely to put me on a pedestal which is the whole point of
the exercise but the awful lapse in reasoning which occured through
Flamsteed's False isochronical 'proof' still remains.I go but that
stays.

I have presented where Newton had scrambled the insight of Keplerian
motion with the Roemerian insight on finite light distance to give a
false astronomical picture that would not have worked in his era never
mind ours.Keplerian motion would indeed make the motion of the planet
(as observed from the Sun) to move faster at the perihelion and slower
at the aphelion but IN ADDITION, there would be a slight exaggerated
acceleration at the perihelion due to the Roemerian insight on finite
light distance and a slight slowing down at the aphelion due to the
same effect.


"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

The big deal is when you use the same Roemerian insight on the scale of
galaxies and the difference between their observed positions and
motions and their actual positions and motions.The local stars you see
are rotating against the remaining galaxies but you need supernova data
to give any real meaning to the use of Roemer's insight.

What is the point in 'warping space' or making things variable ,I'm
sure up to and including the 'fixed stars' models of the early 20th
century that you could get away with that nonsense but for goodness
sake,galactic structure and motion was discovered 80 years ago.

The geologists on the other hand are going crazy looking for a
mechanism for crustal motion but even though the Equatorial bulge has
been known for centuries through astronomical causes,the Newtonian view
sabotages consideration of the difference between constant axial
rotation and variable orbital motion as a factor in crustal
seperation/collision.

It is not the novelty of a new theory I am pointing out,it is the
complete seperation between man and the motions he participates
in.People no longer care for novelty and shock value but enjoy the
inter -relationship between life on Earth and the
terrestial/astronomical elements that make it possible.Multiple
universe,'dark 'solutions,variable clocks are just theorists spinning
their wheels to a world that is no longer listening.

My job is done.

wrote:

What do you think this is, a popularity contest or a discussion on who
is right or wrong.

I wish it were a discussion.

If you won't respond to this is another part of the thread, why not
have a go in this part:
repostStick to 360 degree rotation per day and you'll find the Sun
high in the sky at midnight in 6 months time. 12 whole hours wrong.
The Equation of Time has a maximum correction of about 16 minutes -
utterly irrelevant to the correction or production of an error of 12
hours./repost

Your relevant thoughts please.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

For all your precision you forget that the
principles which originally dictated the equable hour, minute and
second remain constant regardless

Errr nooo, that would be an anthropomorphic construct (by the
Babylonians I believe).
Google for "mean solar day", then try "sidereal day". You'll find the
brightly coloured pictures most informative. If you still cannot
comprehend the difference ask your teacher when term re-starts.
jc


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

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Absolute time/relative time refers to the Equation of Time .

Not in my understanding. The equation of time is an adjustment between
the mean solar day and the solar day. Due to non-uniform motion round
an ellipse they differ from day to day but, a year has exactly the
same number of solar days as mean solar days.

However if I take a solar day or a mean solar day as a rotation of 360
degrees, how come noon will happen in the middle of the night in 6
months time?

I don't quite see what this has to do with Newton or Einstein or
Flamsteed.

I'm not even sure what this guy is going on about. He seems utterly obsessed
with the use of coordinate systems (or the fact that we use them) despite
the fact that we all know they are in motion, and we have a very good idea
of what those motions are. He seems to have a similar obsession with time?
None of these things are absolute, but why should that be a problem?
Grim

Newton used the term absolute/relative but no astronomer ever
sanctioned the use of the Equation of time under such terms.

No wonder the Germans had'nt a clue what Newton was talking about and
neither do you.I do and know exactly what the fiucker did as a
technical maneuver and it is nothing but astronomical suicide.

"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."

So sunshine,before you crawl back to obscurity,what component of the
Equation of Time as the correction between the natural unequal day and
the 24 hour day would you care to reject or are you as dumb as Mach and
Albert.

See the pendulum clock to the left of Ole Roemer,to calibrate his clock
to the equable 24 hour day he would need the Equation of time.

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

Whatever madness that drives the English to go along with Mach who
had';nt a ****ing clue what Newton was doing is more akin to
brainwashing than anything technical.

Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.


Are the English so ****ing desperate to follow Albert and his exotic
nonsense that you you find me wrong to justify a nightmarish
concept.Like a halfwit who throws arround 'absolute' without knowing
that no astronomer would ever sanction its use but you are
indoctrinated to reject something you have'nt the foggiest idea about.

See the pendulum clock to the left of Ole Roemer,to calibrate his clock

to the equable 24 hour day he would need the Equation of time or what
amounts to the same thing ,the difference between natural noon and 24
hour clock noon

http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/imag...ole_roemer.jpg

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

"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. "

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

Did any of you ever stop to ****ing think what Newton was saying and
that the Germans had'nt a ****ing clue.

Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.


One of the greatest principles known to man and passed down from one
civilisation to the next described as an idle metaphysical concept
would be incredible if it were not that humanity has suffered from a
100 years of exotic nonsense because Newton was being too clever for
his own good.

I don't have an obsession with anything but no child should ever have
to suffer the pretensious nonsense where scientists can't even tell the
correct value for axial rotation and describe all things
geocentrically.Go through uk.sci.astronomy at it is all
geocentrism,ever single bit of it.

In message , Grimble Gromble
writes
"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

Absolute time/relative time refers to the Equation of Time .

Not in my understanding. The equation of time is an adjustment between
the mean solar day and the solar day. Due to non-uniform motion round
an ellipse they differ from day to day but, a year has exactly the
same number of solar days as mean solar days.

However if I take a solar day or a mean solar day as a rotation of 360
degrees, how come noon will happen in the middle of the night in 6
months time?

I don't quite see what this has to do with Newton or Einstein or
Flamsteed.

I'm not even sure what this guy is going on about. He seems utterly obsessed
with the use of coordinate systems (or the fact that we use them) despite
the fact that we all know they are in motion, and we have a very good idea
of what those motions are. He seems to have a similar obsession with time?
None of these things are absolute, but why should that be a problem?
Grim


First, he's a troll, and a remarkably unpleasant one. So we shouldn't
encourage him. He posts widely, and God knows what christnet.theology
thinks of him.
Like most kooks, he thinks Einstein was WRONG.
And he's had the facts explained to him often enough to show it's a
waste of time continuing.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , Grimble Gromble

writes
"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

Absolute time/relative time refers to the Equation of Time .

Not in my understanding. The equation of time is an adjustment
between
the mean solar day and the solar day. Due to non-uniform motion
round
an ellipse they differ from day to day but, a year has exactly the
same number of solar days as mean solar days.

However if I take a solar day or a mean solar day as a rotation of
360
degrees, how come noon will happen in the middle of the night in 6
months time?

I don't quite see what this has to do with Newton or Einstein or
Flamsteed.

I'm not even sure what this guy is going on about. He seems utterly
obsessed
with the use of coordinate systems (or the fact that we use them)
despite
the fact that we all know they are in motion, and we have a very
good idea
of what those motions are. He seems to have a similar obsession with
time?
None of these things are absolute, but why should that be a problem?
Grim


First, he's a troll, and a remarkably unpleasant one. So we shouldn't

encourage him. He posts widely, and God knows what christnet.theology

thinks of him.
Like most kooks, he thinks Einstein was WRONG.
And he's had the facts explained to him often enough to show it's a
waste of time continuing.

You should watch that movie where the guy is explaining the
impossibilty of robbing a Las Vegas casino.Even if you figure out an
ingenious way of robbing the casino you are still in the middle of the
desert.As a comparison,many guys bash their brains out finding
ingenious ways around Albert and his cartoon concepts only to find
themselves still stuck in the Newtonian desert.

If I spared one person from going through that revolving
aether/relativistic door I would consider it a success but
unfortunately the indoctrinated would rather believe relativistic
fiction than their own eyes.An astronomer ,at the very least would be
capable of considering the Newtonian terms in astronomical terms and
evaluating them technically but theorists ran away with themselves and
have'nt the faintest idea what Newton was doing.

It must be great to say 'time is not absolute' but technically Newton
is expressing the already existing principle that there is no external
reference for the 24 hour clock day,hence the Equation of time.No
astronomer would ever sanction the 24 hour clock as absolute for all
it does is represent a standard equable pace in contrast to the unequal
pace of the natural day from noon to noon.

Its not my ****ing fault that the English went along with the
relativistic spiel instead of going back and really correcting
Newton,regardless of the cost.