|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion ... Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this. I know. This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with Kepler's First Law: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion if you agree with Kepler's First Law. What are you really saying here? George If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there left to say. Well you could answer my question. How can you say there is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your views that I don't understand. How long have we been dealing with the development of clocks,the longitude problem and using the EoT to bridge the gap between the natural unequal day and the constant 24 hour clock day ?. How long have you been avoiding answering my questions? Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? I now genuinely believe that those who inherit the astronomical tradition really are not up to the job,it is not exactly incompetence but there is a lot of bluffing going on. Given that the diagram exactly matches your own words, you need to tell me what you think is wrong with it or I will have to conclude you are the one who is bluffing. The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines. You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is that correct or have I misunderstood you? The Earth rotates at a constant rate, Good, that is a clear answer and something we can agree. the variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path, Fine, again we agree, and what I have been explaining to you is the mechanism by which the varying distance contributes to the variation of the natural day. It is pleasent to get a courteous response for a change You will always get courteous responses from me as long as you refrain from insults. I will trim out your text when you wander off the topic but that is only to avoid this dragging on for years. We have been arguing far too long already. and this has been a long lonely road.Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the top of this post you will find I said: Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it varies? According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time at aphelion. nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously know that so why suggest it is? George The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the EoT elsewhere. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 I guess there is nothing left to say,in all the years not one other person has brought up these points and they are oh so intricate in an era swamped with information,in this respect I do credit you with following through when it is easy to look at things that seem more novel. As I am a Christian there is no reason for despondency,it is always a tenet of faith that things appear barren for a while and even the joy at coming to settled conclusions pass and it is time to move on.The 8 years of work done on geometric nonperiodicity and its cosmological links presently appears as a wasted effort and I have rarely mentioned it in the time in sci.physics,most if not all is astronomical forensics and that can only generate a limited interest. One Christian as representative of Christ and Christianity and whom I understood more than any other was the great English poet William Blake and even though many mathematicians use his picture of Newton,very few understand what the painting signifies - all head and no heart. http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhib...n/cast_05.html "If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetic character, the Philosophic & Experimental would soon be at the ratio of all things & stand still, unable to do other than repeat the same dull round over again " (William Blake, There is No Natural Religion , b) The loss of the connection between the Infinite and the definite is an easy thing to mock but ultimately very few now try to celebrate it even if we see ourselves failing.The strife between harmony and invention/discovery is what marks the life of a man and just as long as he remains sincere humanity is often enriched regardless of how difficult outside conditions are or the internal hostile atmosphere is,this is not a self-projecting image but a truth,I could not operate without opposition and neither could you. Somewhere there is a balance,I would not care to acknowledge it as an ideal but for the moment this is lost,both in the study of nature and among men. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? Why do you think the page is wrong? ....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the top of this post you will find I said: Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it varies? Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true? According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time at aphelion. Do you agree with these values? nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously know that so why suggest it is? Again why do you write something you know is not true? The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the EoT elsewhere. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page you quote both in the text and the diagram: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif I guess there is nothing left to say, ... If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim, the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the same thing that you state in your text. The only specific you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions above so you can answer them if you want to continue. Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can understand your that. George |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? Why do you think the page is wrong? ....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the top of this post you will find I said: Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it varies? Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true? According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time at aphelion. Do you agree with these values? nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously know that so why suggest it is? Again why do you write something you know is not true? The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the EoT elsewhere. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page you quote both in the text and the diagram: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif I guess there is nothing left to say, ... If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim, the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the same thing that you state in your text. The only specific you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions above so you can answer them if you want to continue. Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can understand your that. George You realise you reached a new low by answering your own points and pretending I wrote them but it does'nt matter anyway,I work on the same principle that it is nearly impossible to change creationist-type tendencies and relativity as it is based on siderealism is no better or worse than the creationist cult. For all the century's worth of hoopla,you followed the ideas of a man and his followers who based models on siderealism,a poor mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism.I can only hope others will reach the same conclusion. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? Why do you think the page is wrong? Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth in accordance with your siderealist view. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm You are fortunate that you can still be a siderealist which is a more accurate description of a relativist even if others have yet to figure out just how creationistlike the whole thing is and I assure you it is not that difficult. ....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the top of this post you will find I said: Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it varies? Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true? According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time at aphelion. Do you agree with these values? nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously know that so why suggest it is? Again why do you write something you know is not true? The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the EoT elsewhere. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page you quote both in the text and the diagram: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif I guess there is nothing left to say, ... If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim, the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the same thing that you state in your text. The only specific you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions above so you can answer them if you want to continue. Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can understand your that. George |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? Why do you think the page is wrong? ....Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the top of this post you will find I said: Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it varies? Why do you accuse me of something you know is not true? According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time at aphelion. Do you agree with these values? nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously know that so why suggest it is? Again why do you write something you know is not true? The Maritime Museum and by association the Royal Observatory makes no distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day in sidereal representations yet always distinguishes between them in terms of the EoT elsewhere. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 And it is clearly stated to be the mean in the page you quote both in the text and the diagram: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/uploads/gif/sidereal-mean-day.gif I guess there is nothing left to say, ... If you are happy to admit I am right then there is indeed nothing to say. You complain that there are errors in the standard view yet are unable to substantiate that claim, the diagrams you quote as being wrong show graphically the same thing that you state in your text. The only specific you can come up with is the suggestion that I think the Earth's orbital angular velocity is constant when I clearly said it wasn't, and when we finally start getting somewhere you then go off on an irrelevant side-issue about a painting instead of addressing my questions. It is hardly surprising this has dragged on for months. I have repeated my questions above so you can answer them if you want to continue. Otherwise I can only assume you have now realised the error you were making but don't wish to admit it publicly. I can understand your that. George You realise you reached a new low by answering your own points and pretending I wrote them ... Do you have some sort of reading problem? I am asking _you_ questions and waiting for _you_ to answer: 1. Why do _you_ think the NMM page is wrong when the mechanism illustrated is identical to the description you gave yourself? 2. Why do you accuse me of saying the angle moved per day is a constant 0.986 degrees when I already told you that I know it varies? 3. Specifically I think the angle moved in, for example, 24h varies between 0.953 degrees and 1.019 degrees according to Kepler's Second Law. Over what range do _you_ think it varies? State it as a distance or an angle, whichever you like. 4. Why did you suggest the sidereal day is defined by solar alignment when you already know it isn't? I am still waiting to hear _your_ answers to these questions. George |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? Why do you think the page is wrong? Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you are happy with the constant orbital displacement ^^^^^^^^ Still trying to peddle the same old lie, eh? If you are serious, you are only emphasising how little you know of astronomy. of the Earth in accordance with your siderealist view. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages? Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong is completely pointless. George |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
George Dishman replied to Gerald Kelleher:
Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth in accordance with your siderealist view. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages? Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong is completely pointless. It appears that he posted links to those pages because he agrees with the information on them. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis .. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Jeff Root" wrote in message om... George Dishman replied to Gerald Kelleher: Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth in accordance with your siderealist view. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages? Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong is completely pointless. It appears that he posted links to those pages because he agrees with the information on them. It's hard to tell but I don't think so. That was his answer to this question: "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 .... Why do you think the page is wrong? so he said "the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong" but has never said _why_ he thought it was wrong. Also in the post that started this thread he cited two similar pages and claimed it was impossible to reconcile the two views: "Oriel36" wrote in message om... .... This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,one has to be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice. http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif Of course they are completely compatible as I showed http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif but as usual when shown to be wrong he just went off on a tangent rather than admit his error. To be honest, I think the whole subject is just a little too complex for him. George |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? Why do you think the page is wrong? Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you are happy with the constant orbital displacement ^^^^^^^^ Still trying to peddle the same old lie, eh? If you are serious, you are only emphasising how little you know of astronomy. of the Earth in accordance with your siderealist view. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages? Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong is completely pointless. George It is called intellectual checkmate,change the positional angles for the Earth's orbital motion and you no longer have your sidereal day nor can you link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,you only other choice is to go back to the sensible astronomical difference between absolute time and relative time known as the Equation of Time,at least as Newton phrased it. Now you still have the other guys looking to aether and all that stuff but nobody ever bothered to check the good material like the relationship between clocks,geometry and astronomy.I may have a problem that I still am the only person here to persevere with the development of clocks as physical rulers of distance but ultimately it is well worth the effort. I am sure now that you won't tether the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion or 23 hours 56 min, but you can give the Royal Observatory and the Maritime Museum a hand correcting their siderealistic views even though,like creationists,it is very difficult to change these cult views. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jeff Root" wrote in message om... George Dishman replied to Gerald Kelleher: Hey George,you may as well have the same graphic as Randy,I hope you are happy with the constant orbital displacement of the Earth in accordance with your siderealist view. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...1/sidereal.htm So I have to ask again since you have yet again avoided answering, what do _you_ think is wrong with those pages? Posting pages without saying _why_ you think they are wrong is completely pointless. It appears that he posted links to those pages because he agrees with the information on them. It's hard to tell but I don't think so. That was his answer to this question: "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message m... Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 ... Why do you think the page is wrong? so he said "the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong" but has never said _why_ he thought it was wrong. Also in the post that started this thread he cited two similar pages and claimed it was impossible to reconcile the two views: "Oriel36" wrote in message om... ... This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,one has to be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice. http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif Of course they are completely compatible as I showed http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif but as usual when shown to be wrong he just went off on a tangent rather than admit his error. To be honest, I think the whole subject is just a little too complex for him. George George It often happens that with creationist/siderealist tendencies you are incapable of noticing that the apical angles are not a constant .986 degrees in your above graphic.In truth,if there were any genuine people here,they would have spotted the flaw instantly as it is not difficult at all to note that relativity is based on siderealism but unfortunately it seems I am alone on this one. I am afraid you suffer a bad case of relativistic indoctrination but are surprisingly more adaptable than other unfortunates,it appears you are akin to creationists insofar as they deny evolution but they themselves and their arguments evolved.Faced with cult thinking is uncomfortable for me and I can only go so far with it but that siderealism based on relativity is a genuine belief,a strange mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism is probably the only thing worth noting in my years here. It is my problem,not yours. |
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 |