The transition from heliocentric to the galactic axis

Gerald Kelleher replied to Jeff Root:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.

The page that the graph is on says the graph shows the effects
of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of Earth's orbit.

One particular point among many brought up in the discussion over the
last number of weeks is that the major institutions inserted an axial
orientation component into the Equation of Time and this is a major
error.

You said that the graph is fine, and I agree. It includes the
effect of axial orientation. If it did not, it would be wrong
by up to ten minutes, often in the wrong direction.

If the graph showed only the effect due to the ellipticity of
Earth's orbit, it would have only one peak and one valley.

The component due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by almost
+/- 8 minutes over the course of a year, while the component
due to the tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the Sun causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by about
+/- 10 minutes over the course of half a year. The result of
combining them is two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys in
the equation of time, as shown in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

How do you explain the fact that it has two unequal peaks and
two unequal valleys?

You typed a lot, but you didn't answer my question.

How do you explain the fact that the graph of the equation of
time that you provided a link to has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

(Jeff Root) wrote in message . com...
Gerald Kelleher replied to Jeff Root:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.

The page that the graph is on says the graph shows the effects
of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of Earth's orbit.

One particular point among many brought up in the discussion over the
last number of weeks is that the major institutions inserted an axial
orientation component into the Equation of Time and this is a major
error.

You said that the graph is fine, and I agree. It includes the
effect of axial orientation. If it did not, it would be wrong
by up to ten minutes, often in the wrong direction.


Look I am getting sloppy,I wrote axial orientation instead of
Equatorial orientation and even though it means the same thing, by my
standards it is unacceptable.Have a ball with planetary orientation to
the Sun but it does not affect the variation in the observed motion of
the Sun from when a location rotates to face the planet to when it
repeats it (natural noon to natural noon).

Axial tilt will lenghten and shorten the shadow cast from the North to
South axis but only only the variation in distance moved through
elliptical orbit will affect the pace of the shadow across the Sundial
and the Equation of Time is built solely on the variation as the Earth
axial rotates at a constant rate,specifically 24 hours per 360
degrees.

If the graph showed only the effect due to the ellipticity of
Earth's orbit, it would have only one peak and one valley.

The component due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by almost
+/- 8 minutes over the course of a year, while the component
due to the tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the Sun causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by about
+/- 10 minutes over the course of half a year. The result of
combining them is two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys in
the equation of time, as shown in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

How do you explain the fact that it has two unequal peaks and
two unequal valleys?

You typed a lot, but you didn't answer my question.


I most certainly did.



How do you explain the fact that the graph of the equation of
time that you provided a link to has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

It is called pure fiction,error,plain wrong,take your pick and I
object that I have to go out of my way to explain the absurdity
through the equality imposed by the sidereal parameter.

If you want to adhere to daylight/darkness asymmetry or the basis of
the astronomical correction contingent between summer/winter as a
factor of the Equation of Time then be my guest for it is fitting only
for a numbskull,but I will remind you that all the major astronomical
achievements relied on the Equation of Time and in the contemporary
world with all these pretensious dithering with clocks and time,men
forget that clocks were developed as rulers of distance and gauges for
celestial alignments but don't know the basic components of the
Equation of Time as a astronomical correction.

"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 om...

If you believe that there is a constant 1 degree
displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole' ...

No, it is purely a consequence of Copernicus. If the Earth
goes round the Sun in 365 days, it moves round the Sun by
360/365 degrees per day. That's all there is to it. This is
what has been at the bottom of all the disagreements we have
had recently and is why I went to the trouble of drawing the
web page.

Gerald, I carefully read all the rest of your post and
there isn't a single word that addresses the actual
topic. Please respond to what I wrote.

George

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm



Your graphics represent the creation of a celestial pole ..

Rubbish, you are hallucinating. The diagram is stripped to
the basics and shows _only_ the Earth moving round the Sun,
just pure Copernicus, nothing more.


If you choose the sidereal parameter you are obliged to introduce the
celestial pole.Your diagrams are in conflict with Kepler's laws of
planetary motion and especially his second law,as the Earth axially
rotates through different distances there is no uniform displacement
of 1 degree from natural noon cycle to noon cycle,there is no means to
introduce the Equation of Time,the sidereal parameter requires the
local stars as reference,in fact the diagrams are a insult to
intelligence and while I have no doubt they look like an achievement
to you and the rest for somebody at my level,by the grace of God, who
can interpret these things instead of finding somebody to discuss how
to model the cosmos off the changing orientation of the local Milky
Way stars to the remaining galaxies,I find myself back in the
astronomical stone age pointing out that you can't even get the first
two rotations of the Earth correct.

The only benefit I have is that the aetherists/relativist is cut from
the same cloth and I do not make the distinction between you,they are
no better or worse that you are when it all comes down to it,but it is
unforgivable that anyone who calls themselves an astronomer would
find any satisfaction in the destruction of the work of Copernicus,
Kepler and Roemer for these silly spacetime notions which have nothing
to do with astronomy and less to doo with reality.


There are only two rotations involved,count them,just two rotations ..

Correct and the diagrams show nothing but those two. Now
try to address the point instead of inventing non-existent
distractions: if the Earth completes one orbit around the
Sun in a little more than 365 days, it moves round the Sun
a little less than one degree per day, true or false?

George

Gerald Kelleher replied to Jeff Root:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.

The page that the graph is on says the graph shows the effects
of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of Earth's orbit.

One particular point among many brought up in the discussion over the
last number of weeks is that the major institutions inserted an axial
orientation component into the Equation of Time and this is a major
error.

You said that the graph is fine, and I agree. It includes the
effect of axial orientation. If it did not, it would be wrong
by up to ten minutes, often in the wrong direction.

If the graph showed only the effect due to the ellipticity of
Earth's orbit, it would have only one peak and one valley.

The component due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by almost
+/- 8 minutes over the course of a year, while the component
due to the tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the Sun causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by about
+/- 10 minutes over the course of half a year. The result of
combining them is two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys in
the equation of time, as shown in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

How do you explain the fact that it has two unequal peaks and
two unequal valleys?

You typed a lot, but you didn't answer my question.

I most certainly did.

No, you typed some ideas which relate to my question, but you
didn't answer my question.

How do you explain the fact that the graph of the equation of
time that you provided a link to has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys?

It is called pure fiction,error,plain wrong,take your pick

You can see that the graph has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys. You said that it is "fine". You can
calculate what the equation of time would be if you did not
include the effect of axial orientation. That equation would
give only a single peak and a single valley.

How do you explain the fact that the graph of the equation of
time that you provided a link to has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

Gerald Kelleher replied to Jeff Root:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.

The page that the graph is on says the graph shows the effects
of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of Earth's orbit.

One particular point among many brought up in the discussion over the
last number of weeks is that the major institutions inserted an axial
orientation component into the Equation of Time and this is a major
error.

You said that the graph is fine, and I agree. It includes the
effect of axial orientation. If it did not, it would be wrong
by up to ten minutes, often in the wrong direction.

If the graph showed only the effect due to the ellipticity of
Earth's orbit, it would have only one peak and one valley.

The component due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by almost
+/- 8 minutes over the course of a year, while the component
due to the tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the Sun causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by about
+/- 10 minutes over the course of half a year. The result of
combining them is two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys in
the equation of time, as shown in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

How do you explain the fact that it has two unequal peaks and
two unequal valleys?

You typed a lot, but you didn't answer my question.

I most certainly did.

No, you typed some ideas which relate to my question, but you
didn't answer my question.

How do you explain the fact that the graph of the equation of
time that you provided a link to has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys?

It is called pure fiction,error,plain wrong,take your pick

You can see that the graph has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys. You said that it is "fine". You can
calculate what the equation of time would be if you did not
include the effect of axial orientation. That equation would
give only a single peak and a single valley.

How do you explain the fact that the graph of the equation of
time that you provided a link to has two unequal peaks and two
unequal valleys?

Gerald,

Yet again you have replied with comments related to my question
but without answering my question.

Evidently you do not know why the graph of the equation of
time contains two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Thank you Gerald, you have at least tried to address the issue
this time. I feel we can make some progress now.


The only progress you are making is into the mire,you give the
rotation period of the Earth as 23 hours 56 min while your beloved
experiments with Foucault's pendulum tell you it is 24 hours per 360
degrees off the Earth's axis.

If you are 1 hour/15 degrees West of the Greenwich meridian
simultaneously you are 345 degrees/23 hours East of Greenwich
meridian,as these meridians are fixed and the Earth rotates beneath
Foucault's pendulum,the grid system of Lat/Long would collapse if you
linked the rotation period to 23 hours 56 min.

Even if you want to appeal to the slowing of the pendulum at lower
latitudes down to the Equator,at any given latitude that circles the
planet,it still reflects equable motion and again,the motion at the
axis free of gravitation effects will dictate that the rotation of the
Earth on its axis is 360 degrees per 24 hours.

http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/pendulum.htm






"Oriel36" wrote in message om...

If you choose the sidereal parameter you are obliged to introduce the
celestial pole.

and later you say:
the sidereal parameter requires the
local stars as reference,

I did not "choose the sidereal parameter" and to make that
clear I have not shown any stars on the diagrams. I want to
discuss _only_ the rotational and orbital motion of the Earth
and leave consideration of the stars for a subsequent thread.

Your diagrams are in conflict with Kepler's laws of
planetary motion and especially his second law,as the Earth axially
rotates through different distances there is no uniform displacement
of 1 degree from natural noon cycle to noon cycle,

The diagrams are not in conflict with Kepler's laws because I
was careful to show only a single displacement of the Earth.


This is quite deliberate to ensure there is no implication of
uniformity. In addition, the text on the third diagram states
"The orbit of the Earth is not a circle but an ellipse and the
Earth moves faster along its path when closer to the Sun." so
there is no basis for your criticism in this case. If I were
to add further symbols representing further movements of the
Earth, I could vary the displacements to represent the
variation described by the second law but I will not do that
at least until we get past the present sticking point.


Which is - you wish to retain the rotation period as 23 hours 56
minutes sidereal day by means of circumpolar motion whereas the
longitude/time coordinates dictate that it is 24 hours per 360 degrees
without having to create a celestial pole.

Nice choice George,you managed to reintroduce the geocentric sytem.


there is no means to
introduce the Equation of Time,

The means would be to extend the series of diagrams but I do
not intend to do that at this stage. Again this is deliberate
because you are discussing the Equation of Time with Jeff and
I specifically do not want this conversation to be sidetracked
into that topic. I want to keep it focussed on Copernicus first.

snip pointless insults


What's the point,you want to keep the celestial pole as a reference
and you are most welcome to it.


There are only two rotations involved,count them,just two rotations ..

Correct and the diagrams show nothing but those two. Now
try to address the point instead of inventing non-existent
distractions: if the Earth completes one orbit around the
Sun in a little more than 365 days, it moves round the Sun
a little less than one degree per day, true or false?

Now that I have made it clear that I am not implying uniformity
of orbital motion (the amount actually ranges between 0.96 and
1.01 degrees per day but I don't want to get into nitpicking over
decimals.)and that I am not at this stage considering sidereal
aspects or the Equation of Time but leaving them for future
discussions, can you agree with my key point here, that if the
Earth moves once round the Sun in a year, it moves approximately
one degree per day?

George

Are you still at a level of the "Earth moves around the Sun,the lack
of precision is just too childish for me as the Equation of Time
relies specifically between the natural variation from noon to noon
or in other words when a location rotates to face the Sun to when it
axially repeats it and the difference with a constant axial rotation
designated by men as 24 hours per 360 degrees.

At least George,you and the aetherist share something in common and
thank God I have never shared anything with either.I suggest you
maintain your correspondence with the aetherist or those who want 6
dimensions of this and 10 dimensions of that,the best that can be said
of it is that it is harmless,the worse is that it robbed the great
astronomers of their insights and diluted the once noble tradition of
astronomy.

"Oriel36" wrote in message ...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Thank you Gerald, you have at least tried to address the issue
this time. I feel we can make some progress now.


The only progress you are making is into the mire,you give the
rotation period of the Earth as 23 hours 56 min while your beloved
experiments with Foucault's pendulum tell you it is 24 hours per 360
degrees off the Earth's axis.

http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/pendulum.htm

Oh dear, some web sites over-simplify for the general public
to the point of error. A brief search shows there are others
that round off to the nearest hour too. At least this page
gets it right:

http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/.../pendulum.html

"[The Foucault Pendulum] would seem to progress around the dial
and make a complete turn in one sidereal day, which is equal to
about 23 hours and 56 minutes of solar time."

snip bit on longitude, dealt with below

Now that I have made it clear that I am not implying uniformity
of orbital motion (the amount actually ranges between 0.96 and
1.01 degrees per day but I don't want to get into nitpicking over
decimals.)and that I am not at this stage considering sidereal
aspects or the Equation of Time but leaving them for future
discussions, can you agree with my key point here, that if the
Earth moves once round the Sun in a year, it moves approximately
one degree per day?

Are you still at a level of the "Earth moves around the Sun,the lack
of precision is just too childish for me ..

Are you denying that the Earth moves around the Sun? I can't
honestly believe you would, yet either you do or you seem to
ignore its consequences.

If you want me to be more precise I will be, but when I have
in the past you have gone off at a tangent. You are keeping
to the point this time so let's give it a try:

.. as the Equation of Time
relies specifically between the natural variation from noon to noon
or in other words when a location rotates to face the Sun to when it
axially repeats it and the difference with a constant axial rotation
designated by men as 24 hours per 360 degrees.

Apart from the last three words, that is all correct but let's
add some detail.

The time from noon to noon varies as you say. The Earth moves
round the sun once in a year of 365.25 days so it moves round
by 0.9856 degrees per day _on_average_. Men designated the
average or _mean_ time from noon to noon as 24h exactly, that
is why our original universal standard was called Greenwich
MEAN Time.

The Equation of Time compares the variation of actual noon to
GMT noon again as you say, but the details of that can be left
to a later discussion as the problem at the moment is that you
are ignoring the 0.9856 degrees resulting from the orbital
motion of the Earth.

Since the Earth has to make one turn plus, _on_average_ an
extra 0.9856 degrees, clearly in 24 hours the Earth turns
through 360.9856 degrees. In doing so it carries with it the
surface features whose locations we define in terms of
exactly 360 degrees of longitude (and latitude and altitude
as well of course).

snip more insults, Gerald getting it wrong then insulting
others only reflects on you

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message ...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Thank you Gerald, you have at least tried to address the issue
this time. I feel we can make some progress now.


The only progress you are making is into the mire,you give the
rotation period of the Earth as 23 hours 56 min while your beloved
experiments with Foucault's pendulum tell you it is 24 hours per 360
degrees off the Earth's axis.

http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/pendulum.htm

Oh dear, some web sites over-simplify for the general public
to the point of error.

There is no such thing as the 'general public' unless you wish to
discrimate it against numbskulls who designate themselves as
physicists.I have the satisfaction of knowing that despite a century
of having this spacetime nonsense shoved down their throats,the
so-called 'general public' are rediscovering how clocks act as ruler
via the longitude problem and there is not a blessed thing you can do
about it.



A brief search shows there are others
that round off to the nearest hour too. At least this page
gets it right:


Take it up with the Smithsonian,if any measurement taken along two
points of latitude will indicate at the polar axis the Earth rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours and this makes sense in terms of
longitude,clocks,geometry and astronomy,you will have to live with it.





http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/.../pendulum.html

"[The Foucault Pendulum] would seem to progress around the dial
and make a complete turn in one sidereal day, which is equal to
about 23 hours and 56 minutes of solar time."


Oh dear,oh dear,oh dear.

Keep your sidereal parameter !,to keep it you have to create a
celestial pole with the 'fixed stars' rotating about the Earth,great
if you are a geocentrist but useless if you wish to use the rotation
of the local Milky Way stars and the changing orientation to the
remaining galaxies.


snip bit on longitude, dealt with below

Now that I have made it clear that I am not implying uniformity
of orbital motion (the amount actually ranges between 0.96 and
1.01 degrees per day but I don't want to get into nitpicking over
decimals.)and that I am not at this stage considering sidereal
aspects or the Equation of Time but leaving them for future
discussions, can you agree with my key point here, that if the
Earth moves once round the Sun in a year, it moves approximately
one degree per day?

Are you still at a level of the "Earth moves around the Sun,the lack
of precision is just too childish for me ..

Are you denying that the Earth moves around the Sun? I can't
honestly believe you would, yet either you do or you seem to
ignore its consequences.


You become emboldened because this material does'nt generate
participation from others,the precision required to seperate axial
rotation of 24 hours/360 degrees from the natural variation of axial
rotation as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly,the alignment
is called 'Noon' does'nt leave much room for the simplistic 'Earth
moves around the Sun'.The Equation of Time is an expression of
Kepler's second law and Newton was expressing it as the difference
betwqeen absolute time and relative so it turns out that if an idiot
tried to dissolve the distinction he would effectively be destroying
Kepler's second law,great !,wonderful ! instead we inherited a century
full of 'frames of reference' garbage instead.


If you want me to be more precise I will be, but when I have
in the past you have gone off at a tangent. You are keeping
to the point this time so let's give it a try:

.. as the Equation of Time
relies specifically between the natural variation from noon to noon
or in other words when a location rotates to face the Sun to when it
axially repeats it and the difference with a constant axial rotation
designated by men as 24 hours per 360 degrees.

Apart from the last three words, that is all correct but let's
add some detail.

The time from noon to noon varies as you say.

The alignment of any location on Earth with the Sun is called noon,the
simplistic might think it is when the Sun is highest in the sky but
geometrically it is the Earth rotating to face the Sun.There is a
variation in the alignment from when the Earth rotates to face the Sun
to when it axially repeats it.This is the natural day.

Really,really clever men worked out that although there is a variation
in the alignment as the axial cycle repeats itself,that by adding and
substracting minutes it was possible to even out the variation,they
did not have to justify the motion of the Earth as 24 hours per 360
degrees by any observed external celestial motion.As any given
coordinate of longitude that stretches from pole to pole faces the Sun
directly,by applying the Equation of Time it is tantamount to allowing
the Earth to drift against the alignment of noon,sometimes before the
alignment and sometime after it in accordance with Kepler's second
law.

Foucault's pendulum indicates what everyone should already know,that
as time and longitude coordinates are fixed insofar as if you are 15
degrees/1 hour West of Greenwich meridian you are also 345 degrees/23
hours East of Greenwich as all nautical charts indicate,try to invoke
23 hours 56 minutes into the Lat/Long grid system and the whole thing
collapses including the reasons why accurate clocks were developed in
the first place.

How wonderful you all are,the rich heritage which belongs to humanity
is in the hands of men like yourself who try their level best to
conceal the ingenious and intricate insights which make the principle
of clocks as physical rulers of distance so you can bootle 'time' up
in a dimension with cheap imaging tricks.


The Earth moves
round the sun once in a year of 365.25 days so it moves round
by 0.9856 degrees per day _on_average_. Men designated the
average or _mean_ time from noon to noon as 24h exactly, that
is why our original universal standard was called Greenwich
MEAN Time.


For those who really would like to become familiar with clocks as
rulers of distance it is fairly easy to determine what constitutes the
word 'noon'.It is a geometric alignment with a location/meridian on
Earth with the Sun,you do not need to bring 'time' into it.Kepler's
second law tells you that there is a variation in the distance covered
by the Earth from one point in its elliptical orbit to another(if this
elliptical orbit were broken into 360 degree segments)and still there
is no 'time' involved just pure geometry.

When the navigators,for each approrpriate day in an elliptical cycle,
added and subtracted minutes via the Equation of Time when they
determined their location's alignment with the Sun,what they
effectively were doing was reducing the variation to a constant,they
could afforded to allow the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through
360 degrees to drift against natural noon because over the course of
an annual orbit the additions and subtractions even out.

Natural noon to natural noon is the variation in the rotation of a
longitude meridian to face the Sun to when it axially repeats it,the
process of reducing the variation by addition and subtraction of
minutes over the course of an annual orbital rotational cycle is what
makes clocks and their subdivisions possible.







The Equation of Time compares the variation of actual noon to
GMT noon again as you say, but the details of that can be left
to a later discussion as the problem at the moment is that you
are ignoring the 0.9856 degrees resulting from the orbital
motion of the Earth.


Perhaps you may think I have not given your diagrams much thought but
I did George but it amounts to astronomical forensics and that I
dislike.The sidereal parameter is observer based,to someone else the
diagrams in your website look reasonable but unfortunately you place
the apical angle at the Sun whereas the sidereal parameter is based on
the Earth to the Sun and to a local reference star.The problem is that
when you include a reference star and set the thing in motion you are
back with a geocentric observer-based format with circumpolar
motion,celestial pole and what have you.





Since the Earth has to make one turn plus, _on_average_ an
extra 0.9856 degrees, clearly in 24 hours the Earth turns
through 360.9856 degrees. In doing so it carries with it the
surface features whose locations we define in terms of
exactly 360 degrees of longitude (and latitude and altitude
as well of course).

snip more insults, Gerald getting it wrong then insulting
others only reflects on you

George

Last year we corresponded on how 'accelerating' expansion can be
perceived as rotation,at least a greater rotation than galactic
rotation.Because clocks measure increasing distance away from the
planetary axis for each corresponding clock subdivision it is possible
to translate acceleration into rotation if this feature is
acknowledged but of course we are back with clocks as rulers of
distance.The material under discussion here meshes in with a greater
rotation than galactic rotation,it can be as simple as that everything
in the Universe up to the galactic scale appears to rotate, moon
around the Earth,Earth around the Sun etc or as complex as galactic
structure and formation indicates a greater rotation but without
making use of the changing orientation of the local stars to the
remaining galaxies in is impossible to factor in what the true
structure and motion of the cosmos is from the apparent when men are
prepared to bypass the changing orientation of the local stars and its
effects on what we see and how we see the relationship between
galaxies to these reference stars and ultimately to each other.

The Equation of Time discriminates between axial rotation and an axis
of rotation centred on the Sun even though we do not directly perceive
the heliocentric axis directly,the next progression is how we perceive
stellar rotation around the galactic axis,if because of the scales
involved are enormous we can perceive the changing orientation of the
local stars to the other galaxies in principle rather than
observation.This is what is at stake but experience tells me that it
sometimes happens that regardless of how I may consider the importance
of observations that 'free creations of the mind' have more appeal to
the imagination.

If it is said that Newton predicts elliptical orbits without refering
to the work of Kepler,what can be a greater insult than that,perhaps I
would object that you cannot set these historical figures as puppets
to sell a theory for it is insincere at best and diminishes the whole
study of natural phenomena at worst.

"Oriel36" wrote in message m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message ...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Thank you Gerald, you have at least tried to address the issue
this time. I feel we can make some progress now.


The only progress you are making is into the mire,you give the
rotation period of the Earth as 23 hours 56 min while your beloved
experiments with Foucault's pendulum tell you it is 24 hours per 360
degrees off the Earth's axis.

http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/pendulum.htm

Oh dear, some web sites over-simplify for the general public
to the point of error.
....
A brief search shows there are others
that round off to the nearest hour too. At least this page
gets it right:


Take it up with the Smithsonian,

I have done so. I'll leave this for the moment.

if any measurement taken along two
points of latitude will indicate at the polar axis the Earth rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours and this makes sense in terms of
longitude,clocks,geometry and astronomy,you will have to live with it.

"If" is the key there, they actually indicate the lesser time.

http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/.../pendulum.html

Much of the rest of your post is related to this so I'll have to come
back to that but perhaps we can clarify one other aspect in the meantime.

....
Are you denying that the Earth moves around the Sun? I can't
honestly believe you would, yet either you do or you seem to
ignore its consequences.


You become emboldened because this material does'nt generate
participation from others,the precision required to seperate axial
rotation of 24 hours/360 degrees from the natural variation of axial
rotation as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly,the alignment
is called 'Noon' does'nt leave much room for the simplistic 'Earth
moves around the Sun'.

So you _are_ denying Copernicus!

The Earth moves
round the sun once in a year of 365.25 days so it moves round
by 0.9856 degrees per day _on_average_. Men designated the
average or _mean_ time from noon to noon as 24h exactly, that
is why our original universal standard was called Greenwich
MEAN Time.


..Kepler's
second law tells you that there is a variation in the distance covered
by the Earth from one point in its elliptical orbit to another(if this
elliptical orbit were broken into 360 degree segments)and still there
is no 'time' involved just pure geometry.

Kepler's second law is that the segments of the orbit include
equal areas in equal _times_.

Perhaps you may think I have not given your diagrams much thought but
I did George but it amounts to astronomical forensics and that I
dislike.The sidereal parameter is observer based,

Your "forensics" are flawed, my diagrams are not "observer based".

to someone else the
diagrams in your website look reasonable but unfortunately you place
the apical angle at the Sun ...

I had assumed you were familiar with Kepler's Second Law since
you have brought it up many times. Although the natural days
vary, in a constant period (say 24h), the line from the Earth
to the Sun will sweep out a constant area. That area is given
by (a * r^2)/2 where a is the angle at the Sun and r is the
radius. (The angle is in radians of course.) Have you ever
actually used Kepler's Second Law?

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message ...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Thank you Gerald, you have at least tried to address the issue
this time. I feel we can make some progress now.


The only progress you are making is into the mire,you give the
rotation period of the Earth as 23 hours 56 min while your beloved
experiments with Foucault's pendulum tell you it is 24 hours per 360
degrees off the Earth's axis.

http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/pendulum.htm

Oh dear, some web sites over-simplify for the general public
to the point of error.
...
A brief search shows there are others
that round off to the nearest hour too. At least this page
gets it right:


Take it up with the Smithsonian,

I have done so. I'll leave this for the moment.


Good,while your at it take it up with the royal observatory as
well,with so much confusion surrounding the Equation of Time even
these guys get it wrong (the Smithsonian is correct BTW).

"There are two great standard clocks at the Observatory: the mean
solar clock and the sidereal clock. The latter registers twenty-four
hours in the precise time that the earth rotates on its axis. A 'day'
in our ordinary use of the term is somewhat longer than this; it is
the average time from one noon to the next, and as the earth whilst
turning round on its axis is also travelling round the sun, it has to
rather more than complete a rotation in order to bring the sun again
on to the same meridian. A solar day is therefore some four minutes
longer than an actual rotation of the earth, i.e. a sidereal day, as
it is called, since such rotation brings a star back again to the same
meridian."

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/bookman.../ROG/ROG06.HTM


The Equation of Time adds and substracts minutes depending on where
the Earth is in its annual orbit,this is how navigators for their
purposes and astronomers for seperate ones could determine an equal
day of 24 hours through 360 degrees without having to justify an
external observed motion of the Sun corresponding to 24 hrs/360
degrees.If you were to guage natural noon or the alignment of a
longitude meridian with the Sun directly (noon) depending on the time
of year it swings from 23 hrs 44 min to 24 hrs 14 min.All the
navigators did was reverse the process,took observation of natural
noon and subtracted or added the appropriate minutes for their clocks
were determining rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hrs.




if any measurement taken along two
points of latitude will indicate at the polar axis the Earth rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours and this makes sense in terms of
longitude,clocks,geometry and astronomy,you will have to live with it.

"If" is the key there, they actually indicate the lesser time.

http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/.../pendulum.html

Much of the rest of your post is related to this so I'll have to come
back to that but perhaps we can clarify one other aspect in the meantime.

...
Are you denying that the Earth moves around the Sun? I can't
honestly believe you would, yet either you do or you seem to
ignore its consequences.


You become emboldened because this material does'nt generate
participation from others,the precision required to seperate axial
rotation of 24 hours/360 degrees from the natural variation of axial
rotation as the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly,the alignment
is called 'Noon' does'nt leave much room for the simplistic 'Earth
moves around the Sun'.

So you _are_ denying Copernicus!

The Earth moves
round the sun once in a year of 365.25 days so it moves round
by 0.9856 degrees per day _on_average_. Men designated the
average or _mean_ time from noon to noon as 24h exactly, that
is why our original universal standard was called Greenwich
MEAN Time.


..Kepler's
second law tells you that there is a variation in the distance covered
by the Earth from one point in its elliptical orbit to another(if this
elliptical orbit were broken into 360 degree segments)and still there
is no 'time' involved just pure geometry.

Kepler's second law is that the segments of the orbit include
equal areas in equal _times_.

Perhaps you may think I have not given your diagrams much thought but
I did George but it amounts to astronomical forensics and that I
dislike.The sidereal parameter is observer based,

Your "forensics" are flawed, my diagrams are not "observer based".

to someone else the
diagrams in your website look reasonable but unfortunately you place
the apical angle at the Sun ...

I had assumed you were familiar with Kepler's Second Law since
you have brought it up many times. Although the natural days
vary, in a constant period (say 24h), the line from the Earth
to the Sun will sweep out a constant area. That area is given
by (a * r^2)/2 where a is the angle at the Sun and r is the
radius. (The angle is in radians of course.) Have you ever
actually used Kepler's Second Law?

George

Yes,the Equation of Time reflects Kepler's second law with only a
slight variation due to the effects of finite light distance,the
alignment of a longitude meridian with the Sun (noon) to when it
axially repeats it reflects the variation in distance covered by the
Earth in its annual orbit.All you have to do is check the alignment
with noon at your location,check it again as your location axially
rotates to repeat the alignment (use a stopwatch if you have to) and
use the appropriate Equation of Time correction for that day.

http://www.jgiesen.de/SunView/index.htm

George,why go to all this trouble when many people already know that
clocks act as rulers of distance,they might not be familiar with the
principles but it does involve adding and subtracting minutes on
appropriate days.The sidereal parameter just adds 4 minutes and is
altogether different than the Equation of Time due to its
addition/subtraction of minutes.


Did you ever imagine that people may wish to know what heritage they
inherited with clocks,geometry and astronomy and ultimately everyone
gains.I am just presenting what is already known in principle but the
nuts and bolts of it may initially be difficult but it is
satisfying,pity you won't put your intelligence towards making things
better.