Doors of perception

Oriel36 wrote:
I like the part where you define the rotation of the Earth through
360
degrees to face the Sun

You are lying. (No surprises there.)

At no place in that tutorial do I "define the rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees to face the Sun". If you wish to assert otherwise,
quote verbatim.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Of course you do,like everyone else.

http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/time.htm

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

The .986 degree differential corresponds to 3 min 56 sec based on the
24 hour/360 degree equivalency.

4 min = 1 deg

4 min*.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

Simple stuff that is incontrovertible yet you imagine otherwise.I
suggest you go back and see how the determination of axial rotation to
24 hour by the isolation of that axial rotation from orbital motion
via the EoT and the longitude problem using the Sun alone as a
reference.The EoT equalises the variation in orbital distance due to
Kepler's second law and leaves the axial rotation constant and intact
with each axial alignment with the Sun.



Perhaps you and your colleagues wish to remain silly but that is not
my business,you are the one who put the graphic into the public
domain.People who remain silent on this matter are no better,anytime a
holocaust exists,intellectual or otherwise,there is no excuse for
closing your eyes and pretending not to see as it will eventually come
out in the open anyway as the material is not difficult at all.

There is little left to do here except recycle the same points besides
the relativistic cult mentality dominates and by association infects
astronomy and what happens to astronomical data.I can't imagine why
the English would abandon their own heritage for a cartoon concept and
especially one based on a fundamental misintepretation of Newton's
phrasing of the Equation of Time in terms of the difference between
absolute time and relative time.I don't know of anything more
destructive for you traded it for stellar circumpolar framework
derived from the sidereal outlook.

I too recommend viewing your sidereal graphic but perhaps not for the
same reasons you would wish,it is a testament to the awful lapse in
human reasoning that allowed the relativistic concept to snowball and
that is that.

Oriel36 wrote:
[more of the usual crap]

I can't believe that I haven't done this earlier!

*PLONK*
--
Stephen Tonkin

Oriel36 wrote on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:

One, stop creating new threads when you are posting followups to
existing items. The references line in the header is there for a reason.

Oriel36 wrote:
I like the part where you define the rotation of the Earth through
360
degrees to face the Sun

You are lying. (No surprises there.)

At no place in that tutorial do I "define the rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees to face the Sun". If you wish to assert otherwise,
quote verbatim.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Two, get a proper newsreader that removes .sigs when quoting. (I've
deliberately left Stephen's in my quote to illustrate that yours did so,
probably without any influence on your part.)

Of course you do,like everyone else.

http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/time.htm

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

The .986 degree differential corresponds to 3 min 56 sec based on the
24 hour/360 degree equivalency.

4 min = 1 deg

4 min*.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

Simple stuff that is incontrovertible yet you imagine otherwise.I
suggest you go back and see how the determination of axial rotation to
24 hour by the isolation of that axial rotation from orbital motion
via the EoT and the longitude problem using the Sun alone as a
reference.The EoT equalises the variation in orbital distance due to
Kepler's second law and leaves the axial rotation constant and intact
with each axial alignment with the Sun.

Three, take a few basic lessons in the history of astronomy before
spouting rubbish in here.

You have the situation completely about face, remember that to the
ancients the Earth and the Celestial Sphere were fixed and the planets
(wanderers) included the Sun and Moon. When the concept of hours was
first introduced, not all hours were the same length.

Perhaps you and your colleagues wish to remain silly but that is not
my business,you are the one who put the graphic into the public
domain.People who remain silent on this matter are no better,anytime a
holocaust exists,intellectual or otherwise,there is no excuse for
closing your eyes and pretending not to see as it will eventually come
out in the open anyway as the material is not difficult at all.

Four, I have no intention of remaining silent if you keep regurgitating
this drivel.

There is little left to do here except recycle the same points besides
the relativistic cult mentality dominates and by association infects
astronomy and what happens to astronomical data.I can't imagine why
the English would abandon their own heritage for a cartoon concept and
especially one based on a fundamental misintepretation of Newton's
phrasing of the Equation of Time in terms of the difference between
absolute time and relative time.I don't know of anything more
destructive for you traded it for stellar circumpolar framework
derived from the sidereal outlook.

Five. There is no such thing as absolute time. The closest possible
measure to such a thing is interval during which a photon travels the
Stoney-Planck unit of distance. Otherwise, the measurement of time
always depends on the gravitational potential (or space-time curvature,
depending on your preferred technique for understanding the phenomena)
of the locality of the observer.

I too recommend viewing your sidereal graphic but perhaps not for the
same reasons you would wish,it is a testament to the awful lapse in
human reasoning that allowed the relativistic concept to snowball and
that is that.

Six. If you really want to learn about astronomy, this can be a great
place to do so. Prove that you have a little sense by switching off the
JCB (tm) now, otherwise you'll just be thrown under the bridge.

Dave.
--
uk.sci.astronomy: 53 deg 47 min N, 2 deg 24 min W, 425' above OS datum
uk.rec.motorcycles: MotorcycleCommute% RIP (1980-2001) Best - 1990 @ 98.64
Important announcements about uk.* net news are on the low-volume newsgroup
uk.net.news.announce - Anti-UCE: Use the usual UK abbreviation for company.

Stephen Tonkin wrote in message ...
Oriel36 wrote:
[more of the usual crap]

I can't believe that I haven't done this earlier!

*PLONK*

"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

As far as anybody should be concerned,Newton's definition and
distinction between the natural unequal day and the equable 24 clock
day is pretty straightforward and provides a wonderful astronomical
twist to Dava Sobel's treatment of the development of clocks to solve
the longitude problem.The basis of the development of clocks always
relied on the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24
hours,if you find room to shift the axial rotation of the Earth to
stellar circumpolar motion and determine it is 360 deg that is what
exactly you will get, a stellar circumpolar framework.

It takes two minutes with a calculator to figure out that .986 deg = 3
min 56 sec when 1 deg = 4 min and 24 hours = 360 deg.It only takes a
short step to recognising how the Equation of Time equalises the
natural inequality in the noon determination to permit a seamless
transition from one 24 hour day to the next.

So Mr Tonkin,how many have suffered the condescension of the
'difficulty of relativity concept ' when the concept forces adherents
to tie the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,a
completely idiotic thing to do,I assure you,the sidereal value of 23
hrs 56 min 04 sec is based on the 24 hr/360 equivalency for axial
rotation,anyone can check it.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

The title of this thread comes from William Blake who seen something
of the wasteland the empirical viewpoint was creating,it is now so
dire that men can't even figure out what the axial rotation of the
Earth is.

http://www.princeton.edu/~his291/Newton.html

Dave wrote in message
Five. There is no such thing as absolute time.

Absolute time is a component of the Equation of Time,the 24 hour clock
to be exact,relative time refers to the natural unequal day as
determined by longitude meridian alignment at noon using the Sun as a
reference.




The closest possible
measure to such a thing is interval during which a photon travels the
Stoney-Planck unit of distance. Otherwise, the measurement of time
always depends on the gravitational potential (or space-time curvature,
depending on your preferred technique for understanding the phenomena)
of the locality of the observer.
Dave.

Look,you are just another brainwashed fool in a world that has seen
too many,a simple glance at Newton's original text tells you that
absolute time and relative time are the two components of the Equation
of Time expressed in terms of the natural unequal day and the 24 hour
day.


"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

I'm sure many will fall for your 'spacetime' linguistic fireworks but
there has to be a certain amount of participants who recognise that
the Equation of Time,although awkwardly expressed by Newton,was the
most practicable computation an astronomer and navigator could make
each day.

I refuse to believe the English would go along with Mach/Einstein
given that Newton was familiar with the development of clocks to
resolve the longitude problem via EoT difference between the unequal
day (relative time) and the equable 24 hour day (absolute time) as he
phrased it.

Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.


The only conclusion you can draw is that Mach was an idiot who had no
knowledge of the English attack on the longitude problem in terms of
the development of accurate clocks in tandem with the Equation of Time
computation and it does'nt take much to recognise how Albert managed
to foist the dumbest concept ever to appear on the planet by following
Mach.

Dave wrote in message

Six. If you really want to learn about astronomy, this can be a great
place to do so. Prove that you have a little sense by switching off the
JCB (tm) now, otherwise you'll just be thrown under the bridge.

Dave.

This is a great place to do astronomy !!!!!,what's next,a great place
to study geology is creationist websites.

You may simply be too dumb to recognise the 24 hr/360 deg equivalency
for the axial rotation the the Earth even though the following graphic
represents the rotation rate after the EoT is applied.You numbskulls
take astronomy lessons from Albert and his siderealistic circumpolar
framework and then call it astronomy and I have to witness the U.K.
heritage descend from one of remarkable achievement to the dumbest
possible level even if it is wrapped up in linguistic tinsel.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cours...dereal_day.gif

Simple arithmetic and you cannot do it, 1 deg = 4 min and 24 hours =
360 deg.
.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

Why don't you join the creationists and you can be all geniuses
together.

On 17 Nov 2003 05:24:57 -0800, (Oriel36)
wrote:

Gerald,

Maybe you could shorten your posts so that if anyone did want to know
what you were talking about, they would have the internal strength to
read them and get to the bottom of your message. As it is - you're
not selling yourself very well.

Perhaps post a link to search results on Oriel36 on the Google Groups
archive. Seems to be plenty of research material on there from you
;-)
--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

You've been dismissed (for some years, judging by archives), yet you
still post?

A narcissist, methinks...
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
*******************************************

On 17 Nov 2003 04:41:33 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

the usual ********

*replonk*

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html

Oriel36 wrote on Mon, 17 Nov 2003:
Dave wrote in message
Five. There is no such thing as absolute time.

Absolute time is a component of the Equation of Time,the 24 hour clock
to be exact,relative time refers to the natural unequal day as
determined by longitude meridian alignment at noon using the Sun as a
reference.

Just making this up as you go along, aren't you. What you have described
above are actually known to the rest of the world as Mean Solar Time and
True Solar Time.

The closest possible
measure to such a thing is interval during which a photon travels the
Stoney-Planck unit of distance. Otherwise, the measurement of time
always depends on the gravitational potential (or space-time curvature,
depending on your preferred technique for understanding the phenomena)
of the locality of the observer.
Dave.

Look,you are just another brainwashed fool in a world that has seen
too many,

You consider that I am a brainwashed fool? Do you even know what a
Stoney-Planck unit is?

a simple glance at Newton's original text tells you that
absolute time and relative time are the two components of the Equation
of Time expressed in terms of the natural unequal day and the 24 hour
day.

A simple glance at Newton's original text of Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica may prove a little difficult as I am not a Fellow
of the Royal Society, are you?

"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

Well, as the above is simply a later paraphrasing from an English
translation of the Latin original, I think you may be mistaken to hang
your entire argument on a misunderstanding of the meaning of three words
in the first sentence.

You do know that in Newton's day every single observatory in Britain
kept to a different time. Many lay people still lived their lives by the
Egyptian measure of time that you so carefully snipped from your quote
of my previous post.

The first understanding of the variation in the length of the day was
one of the objections Ptolemy faced from his contempories when he
espoused a geocentric universe.

I'm sure many will fall for your 'spacetime' linguistic fireworks but
there has to be a certain amount of participants who recognise that
the Equation of Time,although awkwardly expressed by Newton,was the
most practicable computation an astronomer and navigator could make
each day.

Sorry, wrong again. Are you an astronomer and navigator? Having trained
as such over 25 years ago I can assure you that the primary sources of
positional intercepts before GPS were star sights, with Sun and Moon
used as second rate backups if the night sky was obscured.

I refuse to believe the English would go along with Mach/Einstein
given that Newton was familiar with the development of clocks to
resolve the longitude problem via EoT difference between the unequal
day (relative time) and the equable 24 hour day (absolute time) as he
phrased it.

Newton contemporary with Harrison? Pass the screen cleaner. He died in
1727 and the very first of the "clocks to resolve the longitude problem"
wasn't developed until 1735. The real resolution of that problem had to
wait for the Harrison IV of 1761.

I notice from your headers that you are in the Romeo time zone. Is there
something in the water that you and Daniel are drinking?

I really do think its time you scurried back under the bridge.

Dave.
--
uk.sci.astronomy: 53 deg 47 min N, 2 deg 24 min W, 425' above OS datum
uk.rec.motorcycles: MotorcycleCommute% RIP (1980-2001) Best - 1990 @ 98.64
Important announcements about uk.* net news are on the low-volume newsgroup
uk.net.news.announce - Anti-UCE: Use the usual UK abbreviation for company.