Time and timekeeping

Let’s look at the original definition -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of 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...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton, Principia

Newton is not defining time, absolute or otherwise, he is dithering around with timekeeping and specifically the Equation of Time which is a facility that converts the variations in length of time it takes the Sun to cross the observer’s meridian each day into a 24 hour average. His reference to a pendulum clock refers to Huygen’s incomplete description of the Equation of Time -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Aequation.." Huygens

The wider population accept the notion that genius is guarded by a firewall of mathematics and mathematicians are adept at pointing in a direction of a person as something only they understand whether it is Newton,Einstein or some other icon. The truth is that astronomy is more like music as it takes no effort to find inspiration in imaging which tells a story once the observer's sight becomes familiar with the extended length of time it takes to produce imaging. In direct contrast to the theorists who exploit a perspective that things move ultra fast ,ultra small or are far away, genuine astronomy has everything up front but the motions are slow relative to the pace we go about our business. An inspirational astronomer will create narratives understood by everyone with an interest whereas this is the direct opposite of isolated icons standing beside a blackboard full of loose correlations known as equations.

The empirical theorists owe their roots to the timekeeping side of astronomy as clearly seen in Huygen's flawed description of the motions linked to the Equation of Time insofar as that timekeeping facility can only operate within the calendar framework and does not take into account that the Earth doesn't arrive back exactly to the same position in space after a full 4 year/ 1461 day period .

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 8:34:24 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The wider population accept the notion that genius is guarded by a firewall of mathematics and mathematicians are adept at pointing in a direction of a person as something only they understand whether it is Newton,Einstein or some other icon. The truth is that astronomy is more like music as it takes no effort to find inspiration in imaging which tells a story once the observer's sight becomes familiar with the extended length of time it takes to produce imaging.

I think we are getting to the root of it. You cannot grasp the maths behind Kepler's observations or Newton's theories, so you need to dismiss them and pretend that genius is about music and analogies and youtube clips.

But the maths and the theories allow us not only to explain and understand events which have been observed, but to predict astronomical events years in advance. We would not have images of transits of Venus or Mercury without the maths that tells us when they will happen. Horrocks used keplers calculations (with some corrections) to predict and observe a transit of Venus in 1639.

Your baloney can predict nothing, and leads you into false predictions like believing that the inner planets will move in retrograde from Western to Eastern elongation.

It doesn't really matter that nobody could or would discuss the Equation of Time in the rubbish terms of absolute/relative time as Newton framed it as that would be self-sabotage for theorists following relativity and the many empirical drones, as far as I am concerned it is the astronomical content of the variations in the natural noon cycle that are meant to hold interest with timekeeping a secondary issue even if that too is interesting and intricate.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-absurd-claims

It must be something else to see a historical perspective laid so bare and so plain while nothing gets done, at least on the surface. Smashing an ideology like Newton's clockwork solar system and it is a child of the calendar format as timekeeping is does not generate any real satisfaction as the real work is ahead and building narratives that reflect an appreciation of intelligence life and real achievements.