Leap seconds

Our ancestors created a system where they applied 86 400 leap seconds
after every 1460 days elapsed thereby aligning the constellational
cycles with the annual cycles and allowing people to conveniently
locate yearly progressions.

Where are all the myopic people who will spend the next 1460 days
talking about adding or subtracting a leap second because of some
wayward idea that axial rotation can be derived from constellational
motion.

Maybe the next 4 years will bring big changes,just in time to
celebrate the last chance to see the faster Venus overtake the slower
Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop,the most immediate experience
of Copernican reasoning for heliocentricity.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
Our ancestors created a system where they applied 86 400 leap seconds
after every 1460 days elapsed thereby aligning the constellational
cycles with the annual cycles and allowing people to conveniently
locate yearly progressions.

Where are all the myopic people who will spend the next 1460 days
talking about adding or subtracting a leap second because of some
wayward idea that axial rotation can be derived from constellational
motion.

Constellational motion ? You're really a geocentrist aren't you!

Maybe the next 4 years will bring big changes,just in time to
celebrate the last chance to see the faster Venus overtake the slower
Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop,the most immediate experience
of Copernican reasoning for heliocentricity.


Transits of Venus during Copernicus' lifetime were in 1518 and 1526, but no
record exists of anyone having witnessed them.

On Mar 1, 12:27*am, "OG" wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...

Our ancestors created a system where they applied 86 400 leap seconds
after every 1460 days elapsed thereby aligning the constellational
cycles with the annual cycles and allowing people to conveniently
locate yearly progressions.

Where are all the myopic people who will spend the next 1460 days
talking about adding or subtracting *a leap second because of some
wayward idea that axial rotation can be derived from constellational
motion.

Constellational motion ? *You're really a geocentrist aren't you!


Once you tie axial rotation to constellational geometry,you are
forever trapped in it -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Axial rotation has never been isolated and the closest my
astronomical timekeeping ancestors came was to adapt the average 24
hour day to the axial cycle as a convenience but not as an
observation.When Flamsteed decided to attach axial rotation to the
equidistant celestial sphere geometry they were obligated to explain
orbital motion.

Call me what you will,my view exists with those who created the
timekeeping system that everyone on the planet uses today as the 24
hour clock system and its calendrical extension while you follow a
horrible system created around 1672.With a new orbital motion on
view,it is time to stop refeencing the motions of the Earth off
constellational geometry andmotion,the 'fixed stars' in other words.







Maybe the next 4 years will bring big changes,just in time to
celebrate the last chance to see the faster Venus overtake the slower
Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop,the most immediate experience
of Copernican reasoning for heliocentricity.

Transits of Venus during Copernicus' lifetime were in 1518 and 1526, but no
record exists of anyone having witnessed them.

On Mar 1, 12:27*am, "OG" wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...

Our ancestors created a system where they applied 86 400 leap seconds
after every 1460 days elapsed thereby aligning the constellational
cycles with the annual cycles and allowing people to conveniently
locate yearly progressions.

Where are all the myopic people who will spend the next 1460 days
talking about adding or subtracting *a leap second because of some
wayward idea that axial rotation can be derived from constellational
motion.

Constellational motion ? *You're really a geocentrist aren't you!


Once you tie axial rotation to constellational geometry,you are
forever trapped in it -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...tion_stars_sun...


Axial rotation has never been isolated and the closest my
astronomical timekeeping ancestors came was to adapt the average 24
hour day to the axial cycle as a 'constant' ,by virtue of a
convenience but not as an observation. When Flamsteed decided to
attach axial rotation to the equidistant celestial sphere geometry
they were obligated to explain orbital motion.and created an appalling
atrocity by building on 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,using a 3
minute 56 second/.986 deg difference to 24 hours and unbelievably
created equable natural 24 hour noon cycles !!!! -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

Yesterday a star returned 3 minutes 56 seconds ealier to the same
location and today,Mar 1st,the same star will return 3 minutes 56
seconds earlier.There is a very good reason my timekeeping ancestors
refered the daily cycle to natural noon and not to constellational
geometry but that reason appears to be lost to genuine people as the
current 'leap second' fad focuses solely on celestial sphere geometry.



Maybe the next 4 years will bring big changes,just in time to
celebrate the last chance to see the faster Venus overtake the slower
Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop,the most immediate experience
of Copernican reasoning for heliocentricity.

Transits of Venus during Copernicus' lifetime were in 1518 and 1526, but no
record exists of anyone having witnessed them.


Teleescopes did not exist when the great timekeeping and structural
astronomical achievements were created,the Copernican insights and the
refinements by Kepler were accomplished without watches or
telescopes.The main argument for the orbital motion between Venus and
Mars ,in the Copernican era,was the observed behavior of the outer
planets and specifically the resolution for apparent retrogrades.The
faster Earth overtakes the outer planets hence the resolution for the
observed behavior in terms of variations in luminosity and the
apparent backward drift of the outer planets.Here is the Earth
overtaking Jupiter and Saturn,the former still images show luminosity
while the latter show the resolution of retrogrades -

Luminosity variations -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...loop_tezel.jpg

Retrograde resolution -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Why would anybody in their right mind go along with Newton's approach
to and resolution for retrogrades which is at complete variance with
how heliocentric astronomers resolve the matter based on orbital
comparisons -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.." Newton

The slow and elegant resolution for heliocentric motion can be
balanced by the superb and most immediate experience of heliocentric
reasoning,the transits of the inner planets.The event in 2012
represents the faster Venus overtaking the Earth it is outer orbital
distance from the central Sun.I watched the last time a transit
occured and all this forum managed was - 'Venus crosses the face of
the Sun' and nothing more.The excellent Youtube treatment is more like
the lively way to approach this great event -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thBSDf4Ers4

Structural and timekeeping matters are intricate and complex enough
and the greatest struggle is more often to simplify matters for those
who have yet to develop that intutive intelligence to know what is
going on.I am very much a person of my era and grealy admire the new
tools availible to make astronomical reasoning and specifically the
motions of the Earth more relevent to this generation.It is
unfortunate that most here never feel the inclination to move beyond
the observational convenience of the Ra/Dec system or worse,extend
this system to heliocentric reasoning.

Maybe you shopuld take Martin's 10 minute challenge where the galaxies
hang like ornaments off the equidistant stars and constellations but
if astronomy has come down to this,only the most indifferent know that
something went radically wrong.At least now you know.