#21
|
|||
|
|||
On or about 2005-02-23,
Pete Lawrence illuminated us with: On 23 Feb 2005 10:11:47 -0800, wrote: Big topic, small people ( at least so far). Big topics contain big nuts... Aren't they called Snickers now? :-) -- Mark Real email address | Growing old is mandatory; is mark at | growing up is optional. ayliffe dot org | |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message .com, writes A location along longitude does NOT rotate to face the Sun every 24 hours. Our ancestors ASSUMED constant axial rotation and corrected it by the Equation of Time hence there is no external reference for axial rotation through 360 degrees ,neither against the Sun nor the stars. It may eventually dawn on somebody that the Equation of Time format based on axial rotation/terrestial longitudes precedes the calendrically based sidereal system or rather the sidereal format is based on the 24 hour/360 degrees equivalency. Big topic,small people ( at least so far). Small topic, but apparently too big for someone who apparently never sees daylight, let alone the stars. Constant axial rotation is a _fact_, and can be proven without recourse to external observation. The equation of time has nothing to do with constant axial rotation, Ha,ha,ha . The Equation of Time as any sundialist will tell you facilitates the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day using the axial rotation against the Sun as a reference. A half decent astronomer would tell you that the Equation of Time represents the difference between constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion (Kepler's second law) generating the asymmetry between one complete rotation and the next. So instead we have ignorant and stupid cataloguers trying to explain the Equation of Time in terms of daylight/darkness asymmetry within a 24 hour day. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html but the _fact_ that the Earth's axis is inclined to the plane of its orbit and that orbit is an ellipse. So the _solar_ day, but not the sidereal day, varies throughout the year. How on Earth can the sidereal system be "calendrically based"? My Local Sidereal Time is about 05:31 (thanks to http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/siderealClock/ for that), but that's only useful for setting up a telescope. And as for a 24 hour/360 degree equivalency... I strongly suggest that you study the history of longitude and how clocks which are based on the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency for axial rotation saved the lives of sailors.You lot destroy the lives of children and make them believe a lie for the sake of Albert and his spacetime freaks. http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.pro...aval/defin.htm I have never come across so many perverts in one place as in uk.sci.astronomy,people who are willing to make excuses and bluff and bluster rather than correct a simple and obvious ****ing mistake that began with Flamsteed. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Taylor wrote:
Jim wrote: Steve Taylor wrote: Pete Lawrence wrote: kicked out for being carp. You Fish-ist *******...... He must have been put in his plaice. Ouch. Not more cod psychology Jim... For heaven's sake, have you guys nothing better to do than flounder about for fishy puns, even if you do have dab hands for it? Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Stephen Tonkin wrote:
Steve Taylor wrote: Jim wrote: Steve Taylor wrote: Pete Lawrence wrote: kicked out for being carp. You Fish-ist *******...... He must have been put in his plaice. Ouch. Not more cod psychology Jim... For heaven's sake, have you guys nothing better to do than flounder about for fishy puns, even if you do have dab hands for it? Sorry. Eel be good now, and so will I. Jim -- Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk "Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Frey wrote in message . ..
wrote: At least I can say I tried. Yes, me, sorely. I know I shouldn't but I couldn't resist. I had it all sussed - how the Sun goes round the earth every day and the stars do the same but different yet somehow the same and the planets entertain us by going backwards every now and then. Then up pops this theoretical geezer from the 18th century and says stop observing and, wow, my scope broke into a million shards, even though I hadn't finished paying for it. And then this other geezer said e=mc squared and the guarantee ran out. So that's it. Astronomy is dead or a load of what Mr Lawrence calls carp and all that's left is paedastronomy or the corruption of children with false clocks. Still it's more fun than footie. Cheers Martin Thanks for coining the term 'Paedastronomy' or the intentional harming of children by passing on an indoctrination which is neither good nor right. It can be argued that astronomy unlike other disciplines is a harmless pursuit where nobody gets hurt by looking through a telescope however I have clearly stated that what you consider astronomy is really cataloguing. Celestial cataloguing is roughly the same as birdwatching except birdwatching is more difficult and so long as nobody has pretensions to doing astronomy or what amounts to the same thing; modelling of celestial motions from Earth based observations ,cataloguing is fine and a healthy pursuit. What make be convenient for a cataloguer such as the construction of a celestial sphere and a convenient average rate of motion of the Earth against this sphere is highly destructive for astronomical modelling of the motions of the Earth on its axis,around the Sun,around the Milky Way axis and whatever greater motion there may be. Your indoctrination and it shows in every single posting begins with the divergence from pure Copernican/Keplerian astronomy into Newtonian mechanics via the cataloguer Flamsteed.Basically you are indoctrinated into believing that the astronomical progression is from Kepler to Newton but Newton is incredibly vacuous in his astronomical descriptions and while a cataloguer would not know, an astronomer would. The thin end of this huge conceptual wedge and the exact location of the astronomical mistake can be traced back to Flamsteed's false isochronical 'proof' for axial rotation.You cannot take the assumption for constant axial rotation through the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency in tandem with the Equation of Time correction and use it to prove the average time for axial rotation as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec which Flamsteed did. 360 Deg = 24 Hours 1 Deg = 4 Minutes ..986 Deg = 3 Min 56 Sec http://www.nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51...s/AACHCIR0.JPG It is entirely up to a responsible person who has no pretense other than to get to the core of this dreadful lapse of reasoning to figure out that shoving a .986 axial rotational coordinate based on 24 hours of axial rotation into the circumference of orbital motion borders on insanity never mind insincerity. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim" wrote in message ... In article , Stephen Tonkin wrote: kicked out for being carp. You Fish-ist *******...... He must have been put in his plaice. Not more cod psychology Jim... For heaven's sake, have you guys nothing better to do than flounder about for fishy puns, even if you do have dab hands for it? Sorry. Eel be good now, and so will I. Will Salmon put an end to this. I'm tired of Herring this same rubish, playing to the same old old Tuna, Skate-ing around the same old issues and taking such a high Perch. Can you not Discus this eslwhere. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Delighted to see that you lot woke up today as something worse than
geocentrists,I suppose you actually believe the Sun skims the horizon ,sunrise and sunset and all the other geocentric terms. Hey,you guys let the Germans **** you over in 1905 and again in 1916 and permitted such exotic ideas as spacetime in.I wonder how pleased the English public would be to see themselves set up like stool pidgeons via Newton and the thoroughly English chronometer invention used for the most spurious purposes possible. So write your poems and correct grammar but even the creationists are beacons of intelligence compared to you freaks,after all it is only the most basic rotation rate of all and you lot can't figure out the correct value and why it is that way. Thanks for the archive, should I need to demonstrate the quality and diversity of replies, you poor dopes have obliged as I knew you would. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
(Oriel36) wrote:
The Equation of Time as any sundialist will tell you facilitates the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day using the axial rotation against the Sun as a reference. Agreed. A half decent astronomer would tell you that the Equation of Time represents the difference between constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion (Kepler's second law) generating the asymmetry between one complete rotation and the next. Agreed. So instead we have ignorant and stupid cataloguers trying to explain the Equation of Time in terms of daylight/darkness asymmetry within a 24 hour day. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html Typical of the web - it has good stuff and poor stuff. So? I strongly suggest that you study the history of longitude and how clocks which are based on the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency for axial rotation saved the lives of sailors.You lot destroy the lives of children and make them believe a lie for the sake of Albert and his spacetime freaks. Agreed about the clocks giving longitude and saving lives. But the time taken for the earth to rotate through 360 degrees is not the same as the time taken for the hour hand to rotate through 720 degrees. If they were the same, an accurate 24 hour clock reading noon today would show noon in the middle of the night in late August. A clock can never be more wrong than that. Hence the reliance on the stars as a more stable reference for earth's rotation through 360 degrees. Quite how this makes me a pervert remains unclear. Cheers Martin -- Martin Frey http://www.hadastro.org.uk N 51 02 E 0 47 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proposal for an APO "standard:" TMBs 100mm f8 | RichA | Amateur Astronomy | 24 | November 30th 04 04:50 AM |
Fractal Wavicles and the Incomplete Standard Model | Mad Scientist | Misc | 0 | August 26th 04 07:13 AM |
The Standard of BBC reporting nowadays | James Cook | UK Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 04 12:32 PM |
Anyone had success with afocal photography using standard digital cameras? | Tim Powers | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | December 13th 03 02:28 AM |
How are 'standard' Celestron eyepieces? | Timothy O'Connor | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 30th 03 02:57 AM |