|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old
astronomical error from 1677.It requires only a stopwatch and a sighting of a star over the course of two axial rotations of the Earth and demonstrates that the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees is not and cannot be 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as almost all commentators indicate. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy.../sidereal.html Reed Riddle wrote in message ... The Earth rotates in 23h 56m 4s with respect to the stars (and galaxies and quasars). That is all that matters. Reed -- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ 1 axial rotation through 360 degrees = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec 2 axial rotations through 360 degrees = 47 hours 52 min 08 sec I assure anyone who checks using a stopwatch that it is a mathematical and astronomical certainty that a star will NOT return to the same position in the sky after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec (which corresponds to 2 sidereal days). The conclusion is simple,Flamsteed's 1677 premise and method of proof for determining the constant axial rotation of the Earth is not only mathematically incorrect but also observationally incorrect.Here is a brief introduction to Flamsteed's premise - "One of Flamsteed's first projects at the Royal Observatory was to attempt to prove that the Earth rotated on its axis at a constant rate. This had been assumed by Copernicus when he first put forward his theory of the solar system but it had never been proved....Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:- .... 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 An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56 min 04 sec X 2 ) subsequently Flamsteed's premise and proof (as is Mr Reed's) that the Earth maintains constant axial rotation to a stellar framework is incorrect. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
No new postings have come up on the google newsreader so this will
have to do.By right it should be easy stuff to understand the error Flamsteed created by linking the Earth's axial rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion. The sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is based on the constant axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly.That 24 hour/360 degree value is derived from the Sun based reference and the Equation of Time adjustment for constant axial rotation. Chris L Peterson wrote in message . .. On 15 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote: An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56 min 04 sec X 2 )... Of course it won't. Because of the tilt of the axis, it's altitude will change. But if you do the experiment correctly- look at the time a star crosses the meridian one night and on subsequent nights, you will see the length of the sidereal day quite clearly. For example, at my location Regulus will cross the meridian tonight at 17:32:27. In two nights, it will cross the meridian at 17:24:35. The difference is 00:07:52. Half of that is 00:03:56. Subtract that from 24 and you get 23:56:04, the length of the sidereal day. Flamsteed calculated the time for the transit of a star back to his meridian as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec using the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency.He then started from scratch as the star crossed the meridian and using the same 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for the axial rotation of the Earth he calculated the next 23 hours 56 min 04 sec value.The reason that you are getting the 3 min 56 sec difference is because the sidereal value is based on the constant axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly. Unless you wish to stop the Earth from rotating 3 min 56 sec each 24 hour day,I assure you that you cannot prove constant axial rotation via Flamsteed's sidereal method insofar as that concept is based on the already existing assumption of constant axial rotation through the 24 hour/360 degree longitude equivalency. Okay, I didn't get those times with a stopwatch. I calculated them using the standard (simple) formulas, which of course take into consideration the length of the sidereal day. Are you saying those formulas are not accurate? Flamsteed would have needed to check his pendulum clock at his location each noon to determine if the clock lost or gained seconds,this is in the absence of the accurate clocks developed later by John Harrison for solving the longitude problem.There were no timezones in Flamsteed's era nor did the astronomical day begin at midnight,in this respect the 24 hour/360 degree longitudinal equivalency is based entirely on the axial rotation of the Earth back to the noon determination.As there is a natural inequality for each axial rotation,the Equation of Time adjustment was applied to equalise the natural variation in the noon determination which facilitates the seamless transition from one equable 24 hour day to the next. This being so,axial rotation was already known to be constant but Flamsteed transfered it to a geocentric 'mean sun' term.It created a 'mean sun' fiction which displaced the actual assumption of constant axial rotation via the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency,he imposed a constant orbital motion for the Earth which is in direct conflict with Kepler's second law,he has constant axial rotation to the Sun every 24 hours which is in direct conflict with the neccesity of the Equation of Time,he transfered an axial coordinate to a .986 degree/3 min 56 sec orbital coordinate so how much damage can one man do. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm Interesting, because night after night I use them to aim my telescope at imaging targets, and night after night I find those targets dead center in my field of view. That's about as empirical as you can get. Look,I am still searching for a proper term to describe Flamsteed's maneuvering,normally I would just let men figure it out themselves and use their best judgement to correct Flamsteed's astronomical vandalism but perhaps the damage has gone on for so long (1677),it may now be beyond recovery.Flamsteed's maneuvering can be condensed into a simple format and if men remained convinced that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec they can enjoy what that looks like from a heliocentric view,where the Earth can swop positions with the Sun,where there is no Kepler's second law,where the Earth not only has a constant axial rotation wrt to the other stars but our local star as well. 360 degrees = 24 hours 1 degree = 4 min ..986 degree = 3 min 56 sec 24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm The concept of the sidereal day is not "theory" or something to be proved or disproved. It is simply geometry. Your continued failure to grasp this most trivial of concepts is rather astonishing. Of course, the value is only a mean. I recognise that you are not insulting people's intelligence and that you genuinely like your celestial sphere, favorite constellations and what-you-see -is-what-you-get type sidereal reasoning.The sidereal value is great for cataloguing and the civil calendar but it is ultimately based on the equable 24 hour day and the constant axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees and the Equation of Time correction. In reality the length of the day is not constant, a fact that is recognized, measured, and modeled. This inconstancy is the result of gravitational effects and the fact that the Earth is not a perfectly rigid, uniform body. But those effects on timing are exceedingly tiny compared to the very obvious sidereal day which, contrary to your assertion, anyone with a stopwatch (and, I should add, a modicum of intelligence and common sense) can easily measure over the course of one or two days. http://go.owu.edu/~jbkrygie/krygier_.../longitude.jpg I have explained as far and as best I can why it is a mathematical and observational certainty that it will not,if you choose to believe it does,I leave you with the heliocentric justification for your choice,a choice where Kepler's planetary laws do not exist and the exquisite Equation of Time adjustment which facilitates the equable 24 hour day is destroyed. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
On 17 Jun 2004 11:35:40 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote:
... I have explained as far and as best I can why it is a mathematical and observational certainty that it will not,if you choose to believe it does,I leave you with the heliocentric justification for your choice,a choice where Kepler's planetary laws do not exist and the exquisite Equation of Time adjustment which facilitates the equable 24 hour day is destroyed. Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say. But to make things real simple: if you measure the time of a transit tonight, and of the same transit two nights from now, the time difference will be 07:52. It is a trivial experiment. Are you really saying that this is not the case? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
On 17 Jun 2004 11:35:40 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote:
... I have explained as far and as best I can why it is a mathematical and observational certainty that it will not,if you choose to believe it does,I leave you with the heliocentric justification for your choice,a choice where Kepler's planetary laws do not exist and the exquisite Equation of Time adjustment which facilitates the equable 24 hour day is destroyed. Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say. But to make things real simple: if you measure the time of a transit tonight, and of the same transit two nights from now, the time difference will be 07:52. It is a trivial experiment. Are you really saying that this is not the case? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
No new postings have come up on the google newsreader so this will
have to do.By right it should be easy stuff to understand the error Flamsteed created by linking the Earth's axial rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion. The sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is based on the constant axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly.That 24 hour/360 degree value is derived from the Sun based reference and the Equation of Time adjustment for constant axial rotation. Chris L Peterson wrote in message . .. On 15 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote: An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56 min 04 sec X 2 )... Of course it won't. Because of the tilt of the axis, it's altitude will change. But if you do the experiment correctly- look at the time a star crosses the meridian one night and on subsequent nights, you will see the length of the sidereal day quite clearly. For example, at my location Regulus will cross the meridian tonight at 17:32:27. In two nights, it will cross the meridian at 17:24:35. The difference is 00:07:52. Half of that is 00:03:56. Subtract that from 24 and you get 23:56:04, the length of the sidereal day. Flamsteed calculated the time for the transit of a star back to his meridian as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec using the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency.He then started from scratch as the star crossed the meridian and using the same 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for the axial rotation of the Earth he calculated the next 23 hours 56 min 04 sec value.The reason that you are getting the 3 min 56 sec difference is because the sidereal value is based on the constant axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly. Unless you wish to stop the Earth from rotating 3 min 56 sec each 24 hour day,I assure you that you cannot prove constant axial rotation via Flamsteed's sidereal method insofar as that concept is based on the already existing assumption of constant axial rotation through the 24 hour/360 degree longitude equivalency. Okay, I didn't get those times with a stopwatch. I calculated them using the standard (simple) formulas, which of course take into consideration the length of the sidereal day. Are you saying those formulas are not accurate? Flamsteed would have needed to check his pendulum clock at his location each noon to determine if the clock lost or gained seconds,this is in the absence of the accurate clocks developed later by John Harrison for solving the longitude problem.There were no timezones in Flamsteed's era nor did the astronomical day begin at midnight,in this respect the 24 hour/360 degree longitudinal equivalency is based entirely on the axial rotation of the Earth back to the noon determination.As there is a natural inequality for each axial rotation,the Equation of Time adjustment was applied to equalise the natural variation in the noon determination which facilitates the seamless transition from one equable 24 hour day to the next. This being so,axial rotation was already known to be constant but Flamsteed transfered it to a geocentric 'mean sun' term.It created a 'mean sun' fiction which displaced the actual assumption of constant axial rotation via the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency,he imposed a constant orbital motion for the Earth which is in direct conflict with Kepler's second law,he has constant axial rotation to the Sun every 24 hours which is in direct conflict with the neccesity of the Equation of Time,he transfered an axial coordinate to a .986 degree/3 min 56 sec orbital coordinate so how much damage can one man do. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm Interesting, because night after night I use them to aim my telescope at imaging targets, and night after night I find those targets dead center in my field of view. That's about as empirical as you can get. Look,I am still searching for a proper term to describe Flamsteed's maneuvering,normally I would just let men figure it out themselves and use their best judgement to correct Flamsteed's astronomical vandalism but perhaps the damage has gone on for so long (1677),it may now be beyond recovery.Flamsteed's maneuvering can be condensed into a simple format and if men remained convinced that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec they can enjoy what that looks like from a heliocentric view,where the Earth can swop positions with the Sun,where there is no Kepler's second law,where the Earth not only has a constant axial rotation wrt to the other stars but our local star as well. 360 degrees = 24 hours 1 degree = 4 min ..986 degree = 3 min 56 sec 24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm The concept of the sidereal day is not "theory" or something to be proved or disproved. It is simply geometry. Your continued failure to grasp this most trivial of concepts is rather astonishing. Of course, the value is only a mean. I recognise that you are not insulting people's intelligence and that you genuinely like your celestial sphere, favorite constellations and what-you-see -is-what-you-get type sidereal reasoning.The sidereal value is great for cataloguing and the civil calendar but it is ultimately based on the equable 24 hour day and the constant axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees and the Equation of Time correction. In reality the length of the day is not constant, a fact that is recognized, measured, and modeled. This inconstancy is the result of gravitational effects and the fact that the Earth is not a perfectly rigid, uniform body. But those effects on timing are exceedingly tiny compared to the very obvious sidereal day which, contrary to your assertion, anyone with a stopwatch (and, I should add, a modicum of intelligence and common sense) can easily measure over the course of one or two days. http://go.owu.edu/~jbkrygie/krygier_.../longitude.jpg I have explained as far and as best I can why it is a mathematical and observational certainty that it will not,if you choose to believe it does,I leave you with the heliocentric justification for your choice,a choice where Kepler's planetary laws do not exist and the exquisite Equation of Time adjustment which facilitates the equable 24 hour day is destroyed. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
On 15 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote:
An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56 min 04 sec X 2 )... Of course it won't. Because of the tilt of the axis, it's altitude will change. But if you do the experiment correctly- look at the time a star crosses the meridian one night and on subsequent nights, you will see the length of the sidereal day quite clearly. For example, at my location Regulus will cross the meridian tonight at 17:32:27. In two nights, it will cross the meridian at 17:24:35. The difference is 00:07:52. Half of that is 00:03:56. Subtract that from 24 and you get 23:56:04, the length of the sidereal day. Okay, I didn't get those times with a stopwatch. I calculated them using the standard (simple) formulas, which of course take into consideration the length of the sidereal day. Are you saying those formulas are not accurate? Interesting, because night after night I use them to aim my telescope at imaging targets, and night after night I find those targets dead center in my field of view. That's about as empirical as you can get. The concept of the sidereal day is not "theory" or something to be proved or disproved. It is simply geometry. Your continued failure to grasp this most trivial of concepts is rather astonishing. Of course, the value is only a mean. In reality the length of the day is not constant, a fact that is recognized, measured, and modeled. This inconstancy is the result of gravitational effects and the fact that the Earth is not a perfectly rigid, uniform body. But those effects on timing are exceedingly tiny compared to the very obvious sidereal day which, contrary to your assertion, anyone with a stopwatch (and, I should add, a modicum of intelligence and common sense) can easily measure over the course of one or two days. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
Oriel36 wrote:
This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old astronomical error from 1677.It requires only a stopwatch and a sighting of a star over the course of two axial rotations of the Earth and demonstrates that the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees is not and cannot be 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as almost all commentators indicate. Man, you win the booby prize; there are a lot of nuts out there but you really are a special species all your own. I say this in all sincerity: seek professional help. There are people who can help you. Show of hands: how many people out there think that since 1677, with all the astronomers who have lived, and all the telescopes that have come exactly to the right location in the sky when commanded, and through all the successful satellite launches, nobody, and I mean nobody, but our own Oriel36, has ever noticed that the Earth spins at a different rate than we had all thought it did? Stopwatches ready now! Anyone...? Anyone...? Minibrain? N*ncy? No, not even you? Oh well. My own observation: the thing that ties all these nuts together, whether they be juviniles seeking attention, mentally ill, or just plain stupid: extraordinary hubris. After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it. Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are the smartest person on the entire planet... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it. Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are the smartest person on the entire planet... You mean like Albert Einstein? :-) To quote him loosely, "If my theory is proved wrong, I would feel sorry for God". Talk about Hubris! But of course, in this case Al *WAS* right, and the origianl poster *IS* wrong! On that, at least, we do agree. -- Tom Rankin - Programmer by day, amateur astronomer by night! Mid-Hudson Astronomy Association - http://mhaa.whodeanie.com Views and Brews - http://viewsandbrews.whodeanie.com When replying, remove the capital letters from my email address. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur
Tom Rankin wrote:
Greg Crinklaw wrote: After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it. Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are the smartest person on the entire planet... You mean like Albert Einstein? :-) To quote him loosely, "If my theory is proved wrong, I would feel sorry for God". Talk about Hubris! He didn't mean that literally, of course... This idea of the lonely outcast who is an unrecognized genius who will one day prevail is like the mythology surrounding Bonnie and Clyde and other outlaws; it's just so much cultural baloney. Like all myths, people may enjoy the idea but the reality is far different... -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply have a physician remove your spleen |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sci.astro.research | Martin Hardcastle | Research | 0 | April 20th 04 12:00 PM |
sci.astro.research | Martin Hardcastle | Research | 0 | March 20th 04 12:00 PM |
sci.astro.research | Martin Hardcastle | Research | 0 | October 20th 03 12:00 PM |
sci.astro.research | Martin Hardcastle | Research | 0 | September 20th 03 12:00 PM |