Wherre can I get camera adapters?

Martin Frey wrote in message . ..
(Oriel36) wrote:

The sidereal value is based on the rotation of the Earth through 360
deg in 24 hours.

NO - it isn't and there's 8.4 thousandths of a second (better than
20,000 cornishmen) that know the reason why

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

There is tons of stuff on Harrison and the opposition from
astronomers,the basic principle of the 24 hour /360 deg equivalency
for the axial rotation of the Earth is so well known that only a
half-wit or a dullard would argue against it.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anthony...s/r/sobel.html


http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/...SAR376,00.html

So when are you going to come to your senses and drop the axial
rotation of the Earth through 360 deg directly to stellar circumpolar
motion.Do you wish to remain idiots for a relativistic concept that
nobody cares about,done at the expense of turning Newton into a stool
pidgeon in his phrasing of the difference between absolute time and
relative time as the Equation of Time.

'Plonk' all you like,but history,geometry,astronomy and observation is
against you,the RGO and your relativistic colleagues.

'Plonk' all you like,but history,geometry,astronomy and observation is
against you,the RGO and your relativistic colleagues.

Can you explain the bit about where "relativistic" fits into the EOT
conspiracy please?


DaveL

"Dave" wrote in message ...

'Plonk' all you like,but history,geometry,astronomy and observation is
against you,the RGO and your relativistic colleagues.

Can you explain the bit about where "relativistic" fits into the EOT
conspiracy please?


DaveL

You need to be intelligent to construct a conspiracy or a
hoax,relativity is just plain dumb and for people who know no
better,at least astronomically speaking.There is no reason to strain
to 'understand' relativity and even those who have a casual interest
in astronomy should be capable of sorting and sifting how the 24 hour
day is defined off the variation in the natural day via the EoT or
what amounts to the same thing - Newton's difference and distinction
between absolute time and relative time.

So let's put Albert's words front and center and then compare it with
what Newton had to say,insofar as Newton is defining both a 'day' and
the EoT via absolute time (24 hour day) and relative time (natural
unequal day)





http://bartleby.com/173/9.html

From the website; " Now before the advent of the theory of relativity
it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of
time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the
state of motion of the body of reference."

Now,Newton says no such thing,what Newton says is that there is no
observed equable motion corresponding to the 24 hour clock even though
it registers the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 deg.Surely
you in the U.K. have not descended intellectually to the level where I
have to explain again why the observed natural day is unequal for each
axial rotation using the Sun as a reference and the EoT reduces the
variation to an equality,in any case here is the appropriate passage
which affirms there is no observed equable celestial motion
corresponding to a 24 hour clock.

"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. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the true,
or equable, progress of absolute time is liable to no change. The
duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the same,
whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and therefore,
it ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible measures
thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the astronomical
equation." Principia

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

I assure you that Newton is correct and it appears ,at best,that
Albert and by association his followers are not up to the job of
commenting on Newton.If you wish to remove 'absolute time'/24 hour
clock day from astronomy then be my guest but that Albert stuck you
with the stellar circumpolar framework that emerges from linking the
Earth's rotation directly to the sidereal value is a consequence of
tampering with the EoT definition.

To make it simple,here is what Albert foisted on you -

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Dave" wrote in message
...

'Plonk' all you like,but history,geometry,astronomy and observation is
against you,the RGO and your relativistic colleagues.

Can you explain the bit about where "relativistic" fits into the EOT
conspiracy please?


DaveL

You need to be intelligent to construct a conspiracy or a
hoax,relativity is just plain dumb and for people who know no
better,at least astronomically speaking.There is no reason to strain
to 'understand' relativity and even those who have a casual interest
in astronomy should be capable of sorting and sifting how the 24 hour
day is defined off the variation in the natural day via the EoT or
what amounts to the same thing - Newton's difference and distinction
between absolute time and relative time.

So let's put Albert's words front and center and then compare it with
what Newton had to say,insofar as Newton is defining both a 'day' and
the EoT via absolute time (24 hour day) and relative time (natural
unequal day)



But the EoT has unrelated to relativity, so why are you using a supposed
link to support your argument?


DaveL

"Dave" wrote in message ...

'Plonk' all you like,but history,geometry,astronomy and observation is
against you,the RGO and your relativistic colleagues.

Can you explain the bit about where "relativistic" fits into the EOT
conspiracy please?


DaveL

Relativity is not conspiracy,it is just dumb salesmanship done at the
expense of astronomy/astronomers in general and Newton in
particular.If you cannot figure out why the pace of a clock is set to
the 24 hr/360 deg equivalency for the axial rotation of the Earth it
is hardly worth my while presenting relativistic texts which are
unintentionally hilarious,even at a basic level.

Within the borders below is something you posted on the perihelion of
Mercury and predictions but you have to turn to the original 1920
explanation to appreceate the joke,even the first line where Albert
foists Kepler's planetary laws on Newton is an assault on the eyes.




__________________________________________________ ___________________________

He [Einstein] didn't "get lucky". He created a theory that made
testable predictions.
Those predictions have been shown correct to the precision we can
currently
measure. That's not to say another better theory won't come along in
the
future. For example Newton's theory of gravity is still quite capable
of
predicting most planetary orbits to high accuracy, with Mercury's
being
measurably altered in accordance with the predictions of general
relativity.

DaveL

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Here is what Albert had to say -

" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars"


http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

As you are a relativistic apologist I doubt you would get a chuckle
out of that passage and especially the sidereal "motion of the fixed
stars" but as for the rest of U.K. astronomy,I guess you should all
take up stamp collecting, gardening or use your telescopes for
birdwatching.Whatever Albert wrote in that passage above, it certainly
is'nt astronomy and those who followed him certainly cannot call
themselves astronomers.

Perhaps you can tell others what "influence" stellar circumpolar
motion has on planetary motion but as for me,I will just enjoy the
joke alone.

As you are a relativistic apologist I doubt you would get a chuckle
out of that passage and especially the sidereal "motion of the fixed
stars" but as for the rest of U.K. astronomy,

I ask again, what is the relavence of relativity to the equation of time?
And please don't just cut and paste your previous answers, they aren't
relavent to the question.


DaveL

"Dave" wrote in message ...
As you are a relativistic apologist I doubt you would get a chuckle
out of that passage and especially the sidereal "motion of the fixed
stars" but as for the rest of U.K. astronomy,

I ask again, what is the relavence of relativity to the equation of time?
And please don't just cut and paste your previous answers, they aren't
relavent to the question.


DaveL

Newton wrote this astronomical definition and distinction between
absolute time and relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.

"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." Principia

With the Horizon 'time travel' documentary on BBC this evening,you
would do well to first look at the longitude problem and the
development of accurate clocks as rulers of distance in association
with Newton's accurate description of the difference between a
variable natural day (relative time) and a constant 24 hour day
(absolute time) before you go chasing relativistic 'time travel'
rainbows.

Again,absolute/relative time is a wonderful astronomical twist to the
longitude problem that men have yet to appreceate and I assure you
that it is all historically documented.Albert defined
absolute/relative time to his own liking but these terms are
astronomically definite and accurate components of the EoT in terms of
the difference between the natural day and the clock day.If you are
not capable of comprehending what the EoT is and what it does you and
your relativistic colleagues are not competent to astronomically deal
with with those passage in the Scholium IV of the Principia where
absolute/relative time,space and motion are presented .

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

If you can't figure out why the pace of the 24 hour clock is fixed
longitudinally to planetary coordinates based on 360 deg with the
prime meridian at Greenwich you are unlikely to understand how
Harrison clocks solved the longitude problem.

(Oriel36) wrote:

If you can't figure out why the pace of the 24 hour clock is fixed
longitudinally to planetary coordinates based on 360 deg with the
prime meridian at Greenwich you are unlikely to understand how
Harrison clocks solved the longitude problem.

Can you figure out why my watch, fixed to 360 degree rotation goes
round 366 times in a year while my ordinary watch goes round 365
times? Perhaps ordinary watches aren't fixed to 360 degrees per 24
hours.

Newton's use of the word relative sounds like, but is different from
Einstein's and from mine. When I say relative I mean a varied
selection of people, most to be avoided at all costs.

Christmas tends to be a relative time, a time that goes very slowly
indeed, probably based on a 1000 degree rotation, a time to be
avoided, a time to hide behind the sofa, a time for hibernation, a
time to say goodbye to you, dear Gerald. You are getting nowhere but
fast.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Martin Frey wrote in message . ..
(Oriel36) wrote:

If you can't figure out why the pace of the 24 hour clock is fixed
longitudinally to planetary coordinates based on 360 deg with the
prime meridian at Greenwich you are unlikely to understand how
Harrison clocks solved the longitude problem.

Can you figure out why my watch, fixed to 360 degree rotation goes
round 366 times in a year while my ordinary watch goes round 365
times? Perhaps ordinary watches aren't fixed to 360 degrees per 24
hours.

Unlike those who immediately say that a topic is difficult to
comprehend,I contend that men do not think the topic through carefully
enough and it is laziness rather than intellectual incapacity which
destroys reasoning.In this case,you have to define a 24 hour day first
before you divide it into an annual cycle.You may miss the subtle
difference above even if the development of accurate clocks by John
Harrison relied on the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency using the Sun as a
reference makes a pretty big field of discussion unfortunately it
appears that your watch with its 24 hr/1440 min/86 400 sec
subdivisions just popped into existence.

The admiration for astronomers,navigators and inventors stretching
back to remote antiquity and the principles by which they allied
planetary geometry with astronomical observation alone makes the
longitude story worth investigating and even if the purpose of the EoT
is lost to history,it amounts to a serious deficiency and lapse in
contemporary thinking that makes us appear brutes.Anyone who watched
the Horizon program will have noted the hatchet job done on Newton's
'absolute time' so geeks could talk of utter rubbish,in case you do
not know by now that absolute time and relative time refer to the
difference between the variable natural day and the equable 24 hour
day via the EoT,I repeat the relevant astronomically significant
passage from Newton.

"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

Those who built the clock system allied with the Earth's geometry and
geography were aware that there is no motion corresponding to the 24
hour/360 deg equivalency for that is why the EoT is required and
indeed Newton is only confirming what was already known for
centuries.The program last night on BBC made it appear that there was
nothing but superstition before Newton and the geek said so but if
viewers wish to have their intelligence insulted then fine.



Newton's use of the word relative sounds like, but is different from
Einstein's and from mine. When I say relative I mean a varied
selection of people, most to be avoided at all costs.


Burying your stiff upper lip in the sand I would say.Be as ambiguous
as you wish but Newton's EoT difference between the natural day and
the 24 hour clock day is a definite astronomical observation,Albert's
and your's is an ambiguous mess which conceals rather than reveals
anything.As much as the U.K. astronomical and maritime heritage
developed from the principles of clocks and their association with
geometry and astronomy I refuse to believe that the pride of a nation
would sink using simple liguistic tricks.


Christmas tends to be a relative time, a time that goes very slowly
indeed, probably based on a 1000 degree rotation, a time to be
avoided, a time to hide behind the sofa, a time for hibernation, a
time to say goodbye to you, dear Gerald. You are getting nowhere but
fast.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------


I do not need to go anywhere,the development of accurate clocks in
tandem with the EoT is a historical and well documented fact and
especially the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency for the axial rotation of
the Earth.If you decide that the pace of a clock fixes the Earth's 360
deg rotation to the sidereal/stellar circumpolar motion as the RGO
does you will have descended from one of the most enlightened people
to the dumbest race ever to set foot on the planet,that is not an
insult and no offense is intended but if others wish to have their
intelligence insulted by the hatchet job done on Newton,that is a
fact.

The Lat/long coordinates in your signature also represents a unique
time coordinate off the Greenwich longitude meridian,by reducing the
determination of natural noon to the planetary longitude coordinates
via the EoT you can determine your distance to Greenwich or anywhere
else,simple historical fact based on the fact that the pace of a clock
is fixed to axial rotation in 24 hours/360 deg.

(Oriel36) wrote:

Unlike those who immediately say that a topic is difficult to
comprehend,I contend that men do not think the topic through carefully
enough and it is laziness rather than intellectual incapacity which
destroys reasoning.In this case,you have to define a 24 hour day first
before you divide it into an annual cycle.You may miss the subtle
difference above even if the development of accurate clocks by John
Harrison relied on the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency using the Sun as a
reference makes a pretty big field of discussion unfortunately it
appears that your watch with its 24 hr/1440 min/86 400 sec
subdivisions just popped into existence.

Harrison devised a mechanism. It could be adjusted to tell time with
59 minutes to the hour, 23 hours to the day, 3 periods of daylight to
the day and 6.798754 days to the year. Or, as he intended, adjusted to
whatever provided the most practical utility.

You confuse the division of the equator into 360 degrees (which keeps
to the 24 hour 360 degree equivalency) with the rotation of the earth
through 360 degrees which most definitely does not. If it is 10 am in
London then it is 10 pm in the antipodes. 100% accurate. But this has
NOTHING to do with the rotation of the Earth.

It is very easy to mistake stupidity for profundity. You should, at
the very least, consider the possibility that you have made this
simple error.

you will have descended from one of the most enlightened people
to the dumbest race ever to set foot on the planet,that is not an
insult

You could have fooled me.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------