|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... I'll make this simple for you. I'll do the same and cut your verbiage. .. the rotation of the Earth is determined by a clock as 24 hours per 360 degrees. We can test your hypothesis this weekend as "daylight savings" ends: when everyone "put's the clock back", if you are right the resulting tidal wave will inundate us here in Europe. .. the Earth does not roll around the Sun ... Still trying to take us back to Ptolemy Gerald? The sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min is based on the axial rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through 360 degrees,the pace of all clocks is set by this rotation Wrong, the 'pace of all clocks' is set equal to the _combined_ effect of the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun. 23 hours 56 min for its rotation and the other 4 min comes from the 1 degree it has moved along its orbit round the Sun. Accept the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min as the 'true ' rotation of the Earth and Kepler's second law goes out the window and takes Newton's gravitational laws with it. Go ahead George,make the comparison and you will find you cannot have your cozy 1 degree daily displacement. http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif Obviously you still cannot answer the question I set you, "What time is it in figure 2?", but then you never were much good with clocks: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm Good luck. Ha,ha,somebody fudged the data and tried to squeeze the Equation of Time into the 24 hour astronomical day when the Equation of Time defines the astronomical day by using the Sun as a reference for the motions of the Earth,both axial rotation and orbital motion.Unless you did'nt know the meridian alignment at noon when the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly registers an unequal pace for each axial rotation,the natural unequal day in other words. The EoT equalises the distance covered in the Earth's orbital motion as a reflection of Kepler's second law,the days are not unequal just because the Earth has an elliptical orbit but also the variation in the motion through that elliptical orbit. It is a simple choice George,accept the sidereal value and its cozy 1 degree daily displacement using the Sun and Earth and say goodbye to centuries of human achievement,you get your relativistic Earth rolling around 'warped space' but manage to demolish Newton's gravitational laws based on Kepler's planetary laws in the process. This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,one has to be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice. http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
Regarding:
http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif "Oriel36" wrote in message om... This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit, Not at all, here they are fitted on a single graphic: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif one has to be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice. I have no idea why you think there is a conflict, they are both valid and follow simply from Kepler's First and Second Laws. Here is the question I asked using the same graphical style: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm I find it hard to believe you are stumped by this. George |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
In message , Oriel36
writes It is a simple choice George,accept the sidereal value and its cozy 1 degree daily displacement using the Sun and Earth and say goodbye to centuries of human achievement,you get your relativistic Earth rolling around 'warped space' but manage to demolish Newton's gravitational laws based on Kepler's planetary laws in the process. Oh god, he's back :-) What on Earth (sorry !) has the fact that the Earth goes round the Sun to do with relativity? Surely the Earth just has a bit of catching up to do so the Sun is in the same place at noon. -- "It is written in mathematical language" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Regarding: http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif "Oriel36" wrote in message om... This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit, Not at all, here they are fitted on a single graphic: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif one has to be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice. I have no idea why you think there is a conflict, they are both valid and follow simply from Kepler's First and Second Laws. Here is the question I asked using the same graphical style: Sorry George, I no longer deal with creationist-type mindesets and people who adopt the sidereal figure of 23 hours 56 min for the rotation of the Earth and base the axial and orbital motion of the Earth on it. http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif The Earth does axially rotate to face the Sun every 24 hours nor is there a 1 degree displacement in its orbital motion. People who can't model the motion of the Earth can't model anything,so you wake up one morning George and find yourself an astronomical creationist or pseudoscientist,take your pick. For your benefit,the EoT defines the 24 hour clock day from the unequal natural day by making use of the longitude meridian alignment at noon.You can look at the sidereal graphic and that does'nt happen,all the EoT does is provide a seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next but it is how Newton astronomically defined the difference between relative time and absolute time. "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 http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm I find it hard to believe you are stumped by this. George Without Kepler's second law,Newton's gravitation laws won't work,in fact nothing will.There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion yet to keep your sidereal 'true' rotation of the Earth, you are prepared to believe it does. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/ja...er/kepler.html It seems you are all astronomical creationists and quite happy to remain so. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Regarding: http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif "Oriel36" wrote in message om... This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit, Not at all, here they are fitted on a single graphic: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif one has to be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice. I have no idea why you think there is a conflict, they are both valid and follow simply from Kepler's First and Second Laws. Here is the question I asked using the same graphical style: Sorry George, I no longer deal with .... anything I write it seems. You said I couldn't reconcile the two views you cited yet above I show them on the same graphic and you ignore that. The Earth does axially rotate to face the Sun every 24 hours nor is there a 1 degree displacement in its orbital motion. Then you are saying the Earth doesn't orbit round the Sun, unlike Kepler who said its orbit is an ellipse with the Sun at one focus. For your benefit,the EoT defines the 24 hour clock day from the unequal natural day by making use of the longitude meridian alignment at noon.You can look at the sidereal graphic and that does'nt happen, The graphic shows a larger angle is subtended at the Sun for the blue sector than the green in order to keep the areas the same in accordance with Kepler's Second Law. Since the Earth turns at a constant rate, that larger angle means it takes longer for the Earth to turn to align with the Sun between consecutive noons and that is the cause of the variation in the natural day, so what you say "does'nt happen," is right in front of you in the graphic you yourself posted. Without Kepler's second law,Newton's gravitation laws won't work,in fact nothing will.There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion .... Then explain how the planet can move from the point marked "X" in your graphic to the point marked "Y" without moving through the angle subtended by the green area at the Sun: http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif The area of the green and blue segments of the orbit are given by A = a * r^2 / 2 Kepler's Second Law says A is the same for any given duration so when the radius, r, is larger (for the green area), the angle, a, must be smaller to satify Kepler's Second Law. Both are roughly 1 degree but they are not quite the same so the angle is not constant from day to day. Gerald, it is Kepler's Second Law that requires the varying displacement of about 1 degree per day in order to maintain the constant area swept. That variation of the angle then creates one component of the variation of the duration of the natural day which is described by the EOT. http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm I find it hard to believe you are stumped by this. And finally, it turns out yet again that all you wrote was simply to cover up the fact that you still cannot tell the time. George |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion ... Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this. This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with Kepler's First Law: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion if you agree with Kepler's First Law. What are you really saying here? George |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion ... Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this. I know. This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with Kepler's First Law: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion if you agree with Kepler's First Law. What are you really saying here? George If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there left to say.The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines. http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html The Equation of Time was the computation which allowed the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next by making use of the natural meridian alignment at noon or what amounts to the same thing,the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly for every given longitude meridian. I picked up on the fact that even though Newton defined and distinguished absolute time from relative time via the EoT, he based his own calculations on the sidereal value for clearly he uses the sidereal outlook in determining the (false) equivalency of the Sun moving round the Earth is the same as the Earth moving around the Sun. "PHÆNOMENON IV. That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them;" [Principia] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/paradox.htm Over the years I have attempted to keep the whole thing tight,in fact most of it is based on just the two motions of the Earth using the Sun as a reference and calling on the development of clocks and the longitude problem to provide a stepping stone to modelling celestial motion,whether that of the Earth or the wider cosmos.I quite understand why the sidereal value was adopted for the rotation of the Earth but the pace of the 24 hour clock day is set by reduction of the natural unequal day to an equal 24 hour day via the EoT. It is an awful mistake to link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,even 80 years after the scale of the discovered in terms of galaxies the ideas of Mach and Albert still prevail although to the modern mind they should look ridiculous today. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.html "We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars." http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html Ultimately we all fail, if we cannot even model the axial orbital motion of the Earth correctly and that is about as bad as it gets. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion ... Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this. I know. This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with Kepler's First Law: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion if you agree with Kepler's First Law. What are you really saying here? George If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there left to say. Well you could answer my question. How can you say there is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your views that I don't understand. The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines. You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is that correct or have I misunderstood you? The rest of your post relates to the Earth's rotation, not its orbital motion so is not relevant tothe question at the moment. George http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html The Equation of Time was the computation which allowed the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next by making use of the natural meridian alignment at noon or what amounts to the same thing,the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly for every given longitude meridian. I picked up on the fact that even though Newton defined and distinguished absolute time from relative time via the EoT, he based his own calculations on the sidereal value for clearly he uses the sidereal outlook in determining the (false) equivalency of the Sun moving round the Earth is the same as the Earth moving around the Sun. "PHÆNOMENON IV. That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them;" [Principia] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/paradox.htm Over the years I have attempted to keep the whole thing tight,in fact most of it is based on just the two motions of the Earth using the Sun as a reference and calling on the development of clocks and the longitude problem to provide a stepping stone to modelling celestial motion,whether that of the Earth or the wider cosmos.I quite understand why the sidereal value was adopted for the rotation of the Earth but the pace of the 24 hour clock day is set by reduction of the natural unequal day to an equal 24 hour day via the EoT. It is an awful mistake to link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,even 80 years after the scale of the discovered in terms of galaxies the ideas of Mach and Albert still prevail although to the modern mind they should look ridiculous today. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.html "We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars." http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html Ultimately we all fail, if we cannot even model the axial orbital motion of the Earth correctly and that is about as bad as it gets. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion ... Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this. I know. This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with Kepler's First Law: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion if you agree with Kepler's First Law. What are you really saying here? George If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there left to say. Well you could answer my question. How can you say there is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your views that I don't understand. How long have we been dealing with the development of clocks,the longitude problem and using the EoT to bridge the gap between the natural unequal day and the constant 24 hour clock day ?. Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 I now genuinely believe that those who inherit the astronomical tradition really are not up to the job,it is not exactly incompetence but there is a lot of bluffing going on. The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines. You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is that correct or have I misunderstood you? The Earth rotates at a constant rate,the variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path,a sundial naturally registers this as a variation in the pace of a shadow across the face of a sundial from one axial rotation to the next,at least if you shift emphasis to the motion of the Earth rather than the geocentric idea of the apparent motion of the Sun. The rest of your post relates to the Earth's rotation, not its orbital motion so is not relevant tothe question at the moment. George It is pleasent to get a courteous response for a change and this has been a long lonely road.Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html The Equation of Time was the computation which allowed the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next by making use of the natural meridian alignment at noon or what amounts to the same thing,the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly for every given longitude meridian. I picked up on the fact that even though Newton defined and distinguished absolute time from relative time via the EoT, he based his own calculations on the sidereal value for clearly he uses the sidereal outlook in determining the (false) equivalency of the Sun moving round the Earth is the same as the Earth moving around the Sun. "PHÆNOMENON IV. That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them;" [Principia] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/paradox.htm Over the years I have attempted to keep the whole thing tight,in fact most of it is based on just the two motions of the Earth using the Sun as a reference and calling on the development of clocks and the longitude problem to provide a stepping stone to modelling celestial motion,whether that of the Earth or the wider cosmos.I quite understand why the sidereal value was adopted for the rotation of the Earth but the pace of the 24 hour clock day is set by reduction of the natural unequal day to an equal 24 hour day via the EoT. It is an awful mistake to link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,even 80 years after the scale of the discovered in terms of galaxies the ideas of Mach and Albert still prevail although to the modern mind they should look ridiculous today. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.html "We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars." http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html Ultimately we all fail, if we cannot even model the axial orbital motion of the Earth correctly and that is about as bad as it gets. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What an awful mistake
"Oriel36" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Oriel36" wrote in message om... There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the Earth's orbital motion ... Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this. I know. This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with Kepler's First Law: http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion if you agree with Kepler's First Law. What are you really saying here? George If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there left to say. Well you could answer my question. How can you say there is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your views that I don't understand. How long have we been dealing with the development of clocks,the longitude problem and using the EoT to bridge the gap between the natural unequal day and the constant 24 hour clock day ?. How long have you been avoiding answering my questions? Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 You say below "variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you say later so what do you think there is the error? I now genuinely believe that those who inherit the astronomical tradition really are not up to the job,it is not exactly incompetence but there is a lot of bluffing going on. Given that the diagram exactly matches your own words, you need to tell me what you think is wrong with it or I will have to conclude you are the one who is bluffing. The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines. You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is that correct or have I misunderstood you? The Earth rotates at a constant rate, Good, that is a clear answer and something we can agree. the variation in the natural day as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance covered in the Earth orbital path, Fine, again we agree, and what I have been explaining to you is the mechanism by which the varying distance contributes to the variation of the natural day. It is pleasent to get a courteous response for a change You will always get courteous responses from me as long as you refrain from insults. I will trim out your text when you wander off the topic but that is only to avoid this dragging on for years. We have been arguing far too long already. and this has been a long lonely road.Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the top of this post you will find I said: Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours. I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out, Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it varies? According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time at aphelion. nor that longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the sidereal figure. Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously know that so why suggest it is? George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
50 Awful Things About The Baptists | Kirk W. Fraser | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 5th 03 05:50 AM |