Climate change

On Jun 29, 8:44*am, oriel36 wrote:

The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average *within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.Until you come to terms with the original references
for daily and orbital motions you will not know why inverting them as
Flamsteed did,does so much damage.

The return of a star being constant, in units of time derived from a
mechanical clock, shows that _something_ about the Earth's motion can
be naturally measured by mechanical clocks.

Since a mechanical clock is a simple system, using the simple motion
of the Earth as a starting point does not do "damage", it gives us a
solid place to stand to begin explaining the complexities of the
natural noon cycle, which has the variability of the Equation of Time
in it.

If we combine the Earth's orbital motion with this view of the Earth's
rotation, we see how the Earth's orbital motion yields the Equation of
Time.

Yes, our customary unit for the dials of mechanical clocks comes from
averaging the solar day. This is a convenience. But we could have
started with a timekeeping unit based on a pendulum clock with a
pendulum exactly one foot long, and found the return of a star was
constant by such a clock - so your apparent objection that the solar
day must be the starting point, and going from the average of the
solar day to the return of a star and then going back to explain the
solar day from it is circular reasoning is not really valid.

John Savard

On Jun 29, 7:44*am, "." wrote:
and Gerard
does not only receive abuse but some real replies and advise.

But does he make use of the real replies and advice that he gets? Does
he heed them at all?

John Savard

On Jun 29, 7:44*am, oriel36 wrote:

A person who cannot grasp the basic references for the daily cycle and
how the variations in the natural noon cycle correlate with *24 hour/
360 degrees and the information which contains planetary shape and
rotational characteristics is no teacher and no astronomer - period !.

But... but... but... this EXACTLY describes you! You just cannot grasp
the basic reference for the daily cycle, you cannot grasp the concept
of frames of reference, you cannot grasp the concept of the Sidereal
day, or the analemma, or a score of other well-established truths
about celestial mechanics. It is YOU who is no teacher and no
Astronomer in these forums... and everyone knows this but you -
period!

I feel you are all *behaving like spoilt children which is why it is
becoming unbearable here.

Well, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen... I for one
would not miss you at all, because you are apparently unteachable, you
hate being corrected, you are always defensive and argumentative. Your
arguments are weak and I find myself disappointed by your consistent
failure to follow through on any promising lines of inquiry. You
repeat yourself over and over again. You have been given detailed
explanations about how and why you are wrong, but you choose to view
any peer evaluation with cold disdain. I can't remember a single
instance where you have acknowledged or otherwise thanked anyone here
for teaching you something you didn't already know.

In the end, there is not much to be gained be trying to teach a pig to
sing, it just annoys the pig and wastes everyone else's time.

The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average *within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.

So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It
certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at
all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in
length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and
would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day
and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about
it.

"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates
correction is stupid."
- King Solomon

\Paul A

On Jun 29, 6:06*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jun 29, 7:44*am, oriel36 wrote:

The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average *within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.

So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It
certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at
all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in
length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and
would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day
and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about
it.

"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates
correction is stupid."
- King Solomon

\Paul A

I have seen seen such hatred directed against the most basic of all
facts that are humanly possible to consider - how long does it take
the Earth to turn once even when the daily cycle of day/night is based
on rotation to the central Sun with noon as the benchmark.The
information contained in the 24 hour value for rotation through 360
degrees contains all the characteristics of shape and rotation -

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/...s/table02.html

It was never a question of convincing people of this nightmare but
actually finding people who can actually read and interpret the
correct references for daily and orbital motions that do not have the
Nazi taint *,as though Huygens never existed nor Copernicus,Kepler and
Galileo except as props for a fictional history that supports
empiricism.

What must people have to do when they spin a world globe through 360
degrees and watch the 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour longitude
meridians follow suit and still come to the wrong conclusion ? -

http://homepages.ius.edu/PGALVIN/lat...s/meridian.jpg

The astronomical equivalent of 2=2 = 5 is the 23 hour 56 min 04 second
value for daily rotation through 360 degrees and the reasoning behind
it and should anyone feel disgusted with themselves for supporting
this timekeeping average which cannot be used for explaining planetary
dynamics,then the only comparable group I see mentioned in a similar
vain are actually the Nazi-

* "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

I am called mad for believing that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
and especially with all the history behind it and somehow there would
have to be a few people that are aware that something is chronically
wrong to disturb this most basic of all astronomical and human facts.I
do not think you are mad for believing the sidereal time value,just do
not have the astronomical feel with deal with the matter and get rid
of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit
conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists.

On Jun 29, 10:57*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:06*pm, palsing wrote:





On Jun 29, 7:44*am, oriel36 wrote:
The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average *within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.

So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It
certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at
all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in
length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and
would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day
and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about
it.

"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates
correction is stupid."
- King Solomon

\Paul A

I have seen seen such hatred directed against the most basic of all
facts that are humanly possible to consider - how long does it take
the Earth to turn once even when the daily cycle of day/night is based
on rotation to the central Sun with noon as the benchmark.The
information contained in the 24 hour value for rotation through 360
degrees contains all the characteristics of shape and rotation -

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/...ts/u014/tables...

It was never a question of convincing people of this nightmare but
actually finding people who can actually read and interpret the
correct references for daily and orbital motions that do not have the
Nazi taint *,as though Huygens never existed nor Copernicus,Kepler and
Galileo except as props for a fictional history that supports
empiricism.

What must people have to do when they spin a world globe through 360
degrees and watch the 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour longitude
meridians follow suit *and still come to the wrong conclusion *? -

http://homepages.ius.edu/PGALVIN/lat...Grid_files/mer...

The astronomical equivalent of 2=2 = 5 is the 23 hour 56 min 04 second
value for daily rotation through 360 degrees *and the reasoning behind
it and should anyone feel disgusted with themselves for supporting
this timekeeping average which cannot be used for explaining planetary
dynamics,then the only comparable group I see mentioned in a similar
vain are actually the Nazi-

* "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

I am called mad for believing that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
and especially with all the history behind it and somehow there would
have to be a few people that are aware that something is chronically
wrong to disturb this most basic of all astronomical and human facts.I
do not think you are mad for believing the sidereal time value,just do
not have the astronomical feel with deal with the matter and get rid
of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit
conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists.

You never answered the question - no surprise there - that being
"what significance DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 have?"
Clearly it must mean something... even to you.

"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."
- H.L. Mencken

\Paul A

On Jun 29, 7:13*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:57*am, oriel36 wrote:





On Jun 29, 6:06*pm, palsing wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:44*am, oriel36 wrote:
The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average *within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.

So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It
certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at
all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in
length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and
would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day
and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about
it.

"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates
correction is stupid."
- King Solomon

\Paul A

I have seen seen such hatred directed against the most basic of all
facts that are humanly possible to consider - how long does it take
the Earth to turn once even when the daily cycle of day/night is based
on rotation to the central Sun with noon as the benchmark.The
information contained in the 24 hour value for rotation through 360
degrees contains all the characteristics of shape and rotation -

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/...ts/u014/tables...

It was never a question of convincing people of this nightmare but
actually finding people who can actually read and interpret the
correct references for daily and orbital motions that do not have the
Nazi taint *,as though Huygens never existed nor Copernicus,Kepler and
Galileo except as props for a fictional history that supports
empiricism.

What must people have to do when they spin a world globe through 360
degrees and watch the 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour longitude
meridians follow suit *and still come to the wrong conclusion *? -

http://homepages.ius.edu/PGALVIN/lat...Grid_files/mer...

The astronomical equivalent of 2=2 = 5 is the 23 hour 56 min 04 second
value for daily rotation through 360 degrees *and the reasoning behind
it and should anyone feel disgusted with themselves for supporting
this timekeeping average which cannot be used for explaining planetary
dynamics,then the only comparable group I see mentioned in a similar
vain are actually the Nazi-

* "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

I am called mad for believing that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
and especially with all the history behind it and somehow there would
have to be a few people that are aware that something is chronically
wrong to disturb this most basic of all astronomical and human facts.I
do not think you are mad for believing the sidereal time value,just do
not have the astronomical feel with deal with the matter and get rid
of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit
conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists.

You never answered the question - no surprise there - *that being
"what significance DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 have?"
Clearly it must mean something... even to you.


It takes two qualifiers,both based on timekeeping averages,to explain
the constant return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.The
value means nothing in terms of planetary dynamics no more than the
wandering 'analemma' Sun does based on the average 24 hour day,it does
show the danger of using timekeeping averages to model planetary
dynamics and solar system and universal structure while as an
observational convenience in its Ra/Dec mode,it is excellent.

There are excellent tutorials giving the basic outlines which links
clocks to the daily cycle and planetary geometry and geography even if
they do not get into the type of detail which Huygens goes into or my
additions explaining the planetary dynamics behind the natural noon
variations -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE

Most here probably consider themselves intelligent but in this matter
I have yet to see anything but a sort of indoctrination.Now,it is not
the value but the actual means by which the 24 hour/360 degree value
is arrived at in order to move the material into a more productive
mode.


Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns
once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the
historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that
value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with
Flamsteed.





"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."
- H.L. Mencken

\Paul A- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 29, 12:42*pm, oriel36 wrote:

It takes two qualifiers,both based on timekeeping averages,to explain
the constant return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.The
value means nothing in terms of planetary dynamics no more than the
wandering 'analemma' Sun does based on the average 24 hour day,it does
show the danger of using timekeeping averages to model planetary
dynamics and solar system and universal structure while as an
observational convenience in its Ra/Dec mode,it is excellent.

It's true the Sun doesn't have a real motion corresponding to the
analemma. It would, however, have to have such a motion if the Earth
rotated once in an average 24 hour day.

I've pointed out the flawed logic behind your "two qualifiers"
statement - you may think that astronomers are using circular
reasoning, but they could have started with a mechanical clock whose
unit of time had no relationship to the day. So the dependence on the
timekeeping average of the solar day is only illusory.

If people consider you "mad", it is not because you find the idea that
the Earth rotates in 23 hours and 56 minutes, instead of in 24 hours,
to be strange. Many people find it strange at first when introduced to
astronomy. But your unwillingness to accept simple and patient
explanations, to engage in substantive discussion, your determination
that you must know better than generations of people the world has
recognized as astronomers... these are the things that truly leave you
open to criticism.

John Savard

On Jun 29, 11:42*am, oriel36 wrote

Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns
once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the
historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that
value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with
Flamsteed.

I've told you many times before, I fully agree with you that the Earth
turns 15 degrees per hour each 24 hours, totaling 360 degrees, WITH
RESPECT TO THE SUN. We do not disagree here. Flamsteed knew this, too,
but he also noted that with respect to the stars the rotation only
took 23:56:04. Both observations are legitimate because they reference
different frames. What is so hard to understand here? There is really
nothing strange about these observations, nothing mystical or magical,
they are what they are, and the subsequent model that was created to
explain these timings does a magnificent job.

Back to basics for you.

“Careful. We don't want to learn from this.”
- Calvin & Hobbes

\Paul A

palsing wrote:

Back to basics for you.

“Careful. We don't want to learn from this.”
- Calvin & Hobbes

He might have to learn calculus first. ;-)
http://pds6.egloos.com/pds/200710/08...9abda0fb5b.gif

--
Dave

On Jun 29, 10:14*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:42*am, oriel36 wrote

Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns
once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the
historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that
value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with
Flamsteed.

I've told you many times before, I fully agree with you that the Earth
turns 15 degrees per hour each 24 hours, totaling 360 degrees, WITH
RESPECT TO THE SUN.

That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no
external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees
in 24 hours,it is a quirk of how the average 24 hour day is transfered
to daily rotation as a constant after the Equation of Time is applied
to natural noon as one 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day
then so is rotation kept constant.

I am satisfied that the message is finally getting through where it
matters and can leave you and the rest to sort things out among
yourselves in creating whatever story you like based on 'sidereal
time'.

\Paul A