|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
Mikko Levanto wrote in message ...
Oriel36 wrote: Mathematicians who are merely mathematicians are Kantian but the rarer intuitive mathematicians will find that Pascal resonates strongly with their investigations into natural phenomena.Mathematicians who link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion/sidereal value are guilty of the omission of the principle that the Earth's motions cannot be considered as a single sidereal motion or the commonly refered to "the Earth goes around the Sun".The Earth has an independent axial rotation which can be discriminated against its annual orbital motion by means of the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency but it is entirely false to place the value of axial rotation to 23 hours 56 min 04 sec. The apparent circumpolar motion of stars is usually explained by the rotation of Earth and non-rotation of the celestial sphere. You say that this explanation is not correct. So what is the motion that we see as the circumpolar motion of the stars? Mikko It is necessary to define a 24 hour day first before the annual cycle is calculated as 365 days 5 hours 49 min.The original determination of a 24 hour day is the Sun based reference for the motions of the Earth,both axial and orbital, and specifically the longitude meridian alignment when a meridian rotates to face the Sun directly to give the term 'noon'. http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.pro...aval/defin.htm Unfortunately most sites like the one above omit the necessary Equation of Time computation which reduces observed natural noon to the time of the civil meridian whereby the constancy of each axial rotation to the next is maintained or what amonuts to the same thing,the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next. The 24 hour/360 degree equivalency of the axial rotation of the Earth has no observed external reference which is why Newton,in defining and distinguishing absolute and relative time via the Equation of Time, is correct without having to affirm or deny the validity of the the terms 'absolute' and 'relative'.It should be taken as a given that relative time refers to the natural unequal day due to the compound axial and orbital motion and absolute time as the constant 24 hour day where the Earth's axial rotation can be considered in isolation from its orbital motion. "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" Principia Turning to the justification of the sidereal value based on stellar circumpolar motion,the first thing that may be noted is that in directly fixing the Earth's rotation through 360 degrees directly to the sidereal value,it creates a stellar circumpolar framework. http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg The original determination for the axial rotation of the Earth through the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency achieves the isolation of that axial rotation from its orbital motion as an independent motion,there are no outside references to appeal to,while the Equation of Time maintains a bridge to its observed orbital annual motion around the Sun in terms of the compound motion of constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion. The sidereal value treats the Earth's axial rotation in isolation from its orbital motion,as though the Earth were just spinning on its axis and doing nothing else, by appealing to the appearance of a reference star back to the same location in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.By anyone standards this is ridiculous but unfortunately at the beginning of the 21st century this is what men are prepared to believe. The justification of the sidereal value is well documented in many websites but always bypasses the original determination of the 24 hour day through the Equation of Time using the Sun as a reference.The error is not the sidereal value itself but in directly linking the Earth's 360 degree rotation to that value,it is a serious error for it creates the stellar circumpolar framework or 'fixed stars' framework. http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot3.htm The Earth's axial rotation can be considered as an independent motion isolated to 24 hours through 360 degrees.The astronomical importance of this is best appreceated when the Earth's motion around the galactic axis is taken into consideration and specifically the changing orientation of the remaining galaxies to the local Milky Way reference stars and their rotation around the galactic center. In short,you do not wish to linger with the 'fixed stars' models of the early 20th century for they generate this sidereal obstacle. http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... 1 degree = 4 minutes clock time 360 degrees = 24 hours clock time If you are so careless with basic principles ... 360 degrees OF LONGITUDE = 24 hours clock time 360 degrees OF ROTATION = 23h 56m 4.1s It is you who is being careless by not stating clearly which angle you are describing. To determine the sidereal value,it is required to define a 24 hour day first. The 24 hour day is based on the Earth's axial rotation in 24 hours through 360 degrees and only then can you determine the annual cycle as 365.25 days. If you cannot appreceate the subtleties of appreceating the 24 hour day linked to axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees via the EoT and then determining the sidereal value from that figure,it is not my fault. http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot3.htm You said: "Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the Earth does no such thing .. Do you now wish to clarify that if you were just careless with your wording that time too? It is ill-defined,the basis for the 24 hour day is discrimation of constant axial rotation against variable orbital motion.The sidereal value and especially the modelling derived from that value bears no relation to the original determination of a day,neither the natural unequal day or the constant 24 hour day. The sidereal value begins with the 24 hour day already determined but this value is already defined as the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for the axial rotation of the Earth,it appears that you positively refuse to acknowledge the basic principle of axial rotation and the pace of this rotation in 24 hours through 360 degrees yet your colleagues use it as a springboard to determine the later sidereal value. This diagram illustrating Kepler's first law clearly shows that the orbital path of the Earth encompasses or 'goes round' the Sun: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...es/kepler1.gif Can you see that your statement conflicts with the diagram? Is the diagram wrong or was Kepler wrong? Constant and independent axial rotation allied with variable orbital motion generates the natural unequal day.The brilliance of men was to isolate axial rotation as an independent motion with a constant 24 hour/360 degree equivalency from the compound axial/orbital motion,the ignorance of man was to forcebly destroy the equivalency because a kid in 1905 did'nt understand how Newton was distinguishing and defining the natural unequal day from a constant clock day. While you may look to Albert and his train and embankment,you should look at the stellar circumpolar framework he stuck you with,this being a consequence of not knowing what the EoT bridge between absolute and relative time is,hell George,you now can be considered one of the elite who can discuss Newton's definitions as they were originally intended. George (You see, I can use repetition too.) Repetition has its own rewards,first familiarity and secondly it is a technical matter of the working of the internet but you may be slow to pick up on that one. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... .... You said: "Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the Earth does no such thing .. Do you now wish to clarify that if you were just careless with your wording that time too? It is ill-defined,the basis for the 24 hour day is ... The question is perfectly well defined because we are not talking of the 24 hour day, we are talking about Kepler's First Law which describes only the orbital motion, the Earth's rotation plays no part in that. The statement may be ill-defined but then you wrote it and that is why I am asking you to clarify it. An ellipse obviously encompasses its foci and Kepler's First Law says a planetary orbit is an ellipse with the Sun at one focus, so the orbit encompasses or 'goes round' the Sun. You denied that. This diagram illustrating Kepler's first law clearly shows that the orbital path of the Earth encompasses or 'goes round' the Sun: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...es/kepler1.gif Can you see that your statement conflicts with the diagram? Is the diagram wrong or was Kepler wrong? Constant and independent axial rotation allied ... No Gerald, orbital motion is the subject, not axial rotation. Repetition has its own rewards,first familiarity and secondly it is a technical matter of the working of the internet ... No it isn't. When working in Usenet, repetition is deprecated as a waste of bandwidth. The correct technique, when it is essential, is to provide a URL to the previous statement. However, continually repeating an answer that is of no relevance to the question you are being asked is nothing but a sign of stupidity whether you are on the internet or not. A better approach in this case though would be for you to answer my question instead of evading it. Once you admit that Kepler's First Law places the Sun inside the orbit, the reason why the rotation must be less than 24 hours per 360 degrees becomes obvious, but that of course is why you avoid answering, you have to admit that all the diagrams on the web you have been claiming were flawed are actually accurate. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
50 Awful Things About The Baptists | Kirk W. Fraser | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 5th 03 05:50 AM |