"The Calendar" by David Ewing Duncan: Numerous Errors?

In message , Oriel36
writes

The same old BS.


You will have to rely on your own commonsense in the absense of any
worthwhile response and you need not go too far before you recognise
why contemporary explanations are misleading and ineffective.

To determine the annual orbital cycle as 365 day 5 hours 49 min you
are required to determine the equable 24 hour day First whereby the
equable hour,minute and second are determined as subdivisions of the
24 hour day.

But the day is defined as the time between meridian passages of the sun,
and it's divided up into hours, minutes, and seconds. In Civil Time the
day is assumed to be of constant length. What's so difficult about that
idea?


If you agree that it is not possible to calculate the annual cycle
without first determining the equable 24 hour day you will be half way
to developing a far better appreceation of the calendar system as an
offshoot of the principles which determine the equable day.

Using the Sun as a reference for the motions of the Earth,the combined
constant axial and variable orbital motion generates a change from
one rotation for a given longitude meridian to the next complete
rotation.The brilliance of our ancestors was to equalise the variation
by adding and subtracting appropriate minutes and seconds to
longitudinal noon to smooth out the variations and facilitate the
seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour
day,Monday into Tuesday,ect.

This correction is known as the Equation of Time.

In 1677,Flamsteed altered the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency and
linked the rotation of the Earth directly to stellar circumpolar
motion giving the value for rotation through 360 degrees as the
sidereal 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.He screwed up the ancient exquisite
reasoning that benefited humanity with the 24 hour day and
subsequently the calendar year based on that equable day.

Why not post the Flamsteed statement, or post a link to it? I'd be
interested to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking
about, but AFAICS Flamsteed was responsible for the idea of the equation
of time.
BTW, either you have a virus or you are deliberately sending me
unsolicited emails.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes

The same old BS.


To be fair to you,the mistake is a really old one and precedes the
gravitational agenda (which makes use of the mistake) by a decade.The
first professional astronomer was Flamsteed who set out to prove that
the Earth rotates constantly on its axis through the motion of the
fixed stars thereby making use of this observation for determining
planetary longitude.

Flamsteed was incorrect.





You will have to rely on your own commonsense in the absense of any
worthwhile response and you need not go too far before you recognise
why contemporary explanations are misleading and ineffective.

To determine the annual orbital cycle as 365 day 5 hours 49 min you
are required to determine the equable 24 hour day First whereby the
equable hour,minute and second are determined as subdivisions of the
24 hour day.

But the day is defined as the time between meridian passages of the sun,
and it's divided up into hours, minutes, and seconds. In Civil Time the
day is assumed to be of constant length. What's so difficult about that
idea?


If you agree that it is not possible to calculate the annual cycle
without first determining the equable 24 hour day you will be half way
to developing a far better appreceation of the calendar system as an
offshoot of the principles which determine the equable day.

Using the Sun as a reference for the motions of the Earth,the combined
constant axial and variable orbital motion generates a change from
one rotation for a given longitude meridian to the next complete
rotation.The brilliance of our ancestors was to equalise the variation
by adding and subtracting appropriate minutes and seconds to
longitudinal noon to smooth out the variations and facilitate the
seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour
day,Monday into Tuesday,ect.

This correction is known as the Equation of Time.

In 1677,Flamsteed altered the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency and
linked the rotation of the Earth directly to stellar circumpolar
motion giving the value for rotation through 360 degrees as the
sidereal 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.He screwed up the ancient exquisite
reasoning that benefited humanity with the 24 hour day and
subsequently the calendar year based on that equable day.

Why not post the Flamsteed statement, or post a link to it?

I did many times -

.... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical"

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ongitude2.html

A direct consequence of that statement can be found in any website
refering to the sidereal value -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml








I'd be
interested to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking
about, but AFAICS Flamsteed was responsible for the idea of the equation
of time.

You won't find any,there is just myself.

You can however appeal to those who are familiar with the equable 24
hour clock day,the Equation of Time correction from the noon
determination and how one 24 hour day elapses seamlessly into the next
24 hour day by the 'Equation of Time' method but then you will
encounter those who are aware that the precise value for axial
rotation through 360 degrees,is and always will be 24 hours.





BTW, either you have a virus or you are deliberately sending me
unsolicited emails.

In message , Oriel36
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes

The same old BS.


To be fair to you,the mistake is a really old one and precedes the
gravitational agenda (which makes use of the mistake) by a decade.The
first professional astronomer was Flamsteed who set out to prove that
the Earth rotates constantly on its axis through the motion of the
fixed stars thereby making use of this observation for determining
planetary longitude.

Flamsteed was incorrect.


And just how was Flamsteed incorrect? The rotation of the Earth _is_
isochronical, to use Flamsteed's word, and we can now test it using
atomic clocks and measurements to a fraction of a second in a year..
That experiment was a bit like the recent attempt to measure the speed
of gravity - we are sure of the result but it needs to be tested.


Why not post the Flamsteed statement, or post a link to it?

I did many times -

... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical"

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ongitude2.html

A direct consequence of that statement can be found in any website
refering to the sidereal value -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml


I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking
about, but AFAICS Flamsteed was responsible for the idea of the equation
of time.

You won't find any,there is just myself.

Such modesty :-)


You can however appeal to those who are familiar with the equable 24
hour clock day,the Equation of Time correction from the noon
determination and how one 24 hour day elapses seamlessly into the next
24 hour day by the 'Equation of Time' method but then you will
encounter those who are aware that the precise value for axial
rotation through 360 degrees,is and always will be 24 hours.


Not in relation to the stars!


BTW, either you have a virus or you are deliberately sending me
unsolicited emails.

I've changed my address in this to avoid spam, but here's what I
received.

Received: from pop.freeserve.com by merseia.fsnet.co.uk with POP3
id rve.com
for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004
18:00:19 +0100
Return-Path:
Received: from mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com)
by mwinb3105 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:53:48
+0200
X-Sieve: Server Sieve 2.2
Received: by mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server, from userid 1003)
id 3F9A3180031C; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:53:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pop.org (unknown [207.191.95.158])
by mwinf3013.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id
598F918002AF
for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:53:47
+0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:56:38 -0600
To: "Jsilverlight"
From: "Geraldkelleher"
Subject:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="--------puykljohxasqfycbydmo"
Envelope-to:

X-me-spamlevel: not-spam
X-me-spamrating: 39.594129

cidgsakopqiz.bmp

[ A MIME image / bmp part was included here. ]


[ A MIME application / octet-stream part was included here. ]


Any comment? The bitmap shows Key - 52741 and the application is
something called fish.zip : data size 0kb. Just what are you sending,
and why?

Philip Clarke wrote:

................ Initially, I was struck by an internet article which
described how the second was originally defined as 1 / 31,556,925.975
of a year, and then after Scientists complained that this was not
accurate enough, they re-defined the second as 1 / 31,556,925.9747 of
a year. By definition, a (mean solar?) year is 31,556,925.9747
seconds in duratin. The question is, if 0.003 of a second made a
difference to Scientists in 1967, then why was the "caesium frequency"
of the current year only defined to the nearest 0.5 seconds? I have
looked at formulae by Newcomb and others without success.

For future reference, I note that I have made a few errors in the
paragraph above. Apart from the spelling mistake, there are two
others which should be corrected;

1967 - The atomic second was defined in 1967. I should have said 1956
when the second was re-defined as 1 / 31,556,925.9747 of a year,
having been previously defined in 1954 as 1 / 31,556,925.975 of a year
(the tropical year of 1900).

0.5 seconds - this should have read 0.05 seconds.

Regards,


Philip Clarke