Beautiful day at South pole

In article ,
Gerald Kelleher wrote:

The use of two shadows aligning into one by using two sticks or threads sets
up the reference for the 24 hour cycle however this only works if the sticks
are aligned along a longitude meridian.

Harrison's chimneys were not aligned along a meridian. In spite of that,
he solved the longitude problem.

Mikko

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:06:22 AM UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
Gerald Kelleher wrote:

The use of two shadows aligning into one by using two sticks or threads sets
up the reference for the 24 hour cycle however this only works if the sticks
are aligned along a longitude meridian.

Harrison's chimneys were not aligned along a meridian. In spite of that,
he solved the longitude problem.

Mikko

Silly man, you can use the foreground reference of a window frame and a chimney as Harrison did to check the accuracy of the watch but this doesn't equate to a complete rotation of the Earth. The watches Harrison developed were built around the principles of the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system and Harrison was the first person to introduce a set of tables which included the correction for February 29th.

Until I came along nobody explained how the average day morphes into constant rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour which ultimately transmits into the Equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour and a complete rotation of the circumference in 24 hours. The trick is to recognize that the 'average' 24 hour day has no external reference and is a product of the 365/366 day calendar system.

Mathematicians and their followers overthink the issue and introduced an error which assigned significance to a complete circumpolar rotation of the field of stars with one rotation however, two sticks and a watch creates an illusion as any discriminate direction of the two sticks (corresponding to Harrison's window frame and chimney) will generate a homocentric view.

So, you learned that checking the accuracy of a watch is not the same thing as concluding that a rotating celestial sphere equates directly to daily rotation, if you don't take my word for it then Harrison will explain it to you -

"The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
those degrees and it must follow, that from the time any one of
those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
clearly discovered." John Harrison

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 4:21:08 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Mathematicians and their followers overthink the issue

How would _you_ know?

John Savard

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 8:35:42 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 4:21:08 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Mathematicians and their followers overthink the issue

How would _you_ know?

Seriously, your attitude towards mathematics seems to embody no more thought
than a plastic toy doll could be capable of:

https://www.wired.com/2011/12/math-class-is-tough/

How would you know if mathematicians are overthinking, when you show no signs
of even attempting to follow their reasoning, to check it for validity?

John Savard

Constant daylight for well over 6 months marks the difference between the day due to daily rotation and daylight due to the orbital surface rotation -

https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

The rules are clear -

1. The reference for daily rotation is the central and stationary Sun so that all effects within the realm of terrestrial sciences are accounted for.

2. The only acceptable reference for the incremental change in the position of the stars is the central Sun as they move from left to right or corresponding to a transition from an evening appearance to a dawn appearance -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

3. The seasons are a combination of the planet's dual surface rotations to the central Sun. Of necessity the dual day/night cycles are split apart by cause and then rejoined as the seasons.

4. The observed variations in length of the natural noon cycles are from the same cause with daily rotation constant by inference and the orbital surface rotation varying in response to the variable orbital speed of the Earth..

It was never about a battle of equals as the purpose is not to contend with the two sticks and a watch brigade but rather showing what is being obstructed as long as a celestial sphere mindsets dominate astronomy. There is room for RA/Dec observing and certainly speculative astronomy in regards to cause and effect but not as they exist presently.