Time from Big Dipper/Polaris positions?

Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2014 3:47:39 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

As you wrote above the background stars are the reference.

An external reference is an external reference. Theories must be logically
consistent.

For the orbital motions of the Earth and the planets. Not for their rotations!

The center of the orbital motions is the Sun, and the Sun's reference is the
background stars.

The center of the rotational motion of a planet is the planet's own center, and
because the planets orbit the Sun, the Sun is their reference. The planets
orbit the Sun, hence trying to go from them directly to the fixed stars is (a
violation of the chain of command) a denial of the fact established by
Copernicus that the Earth orbits the Sun instead of the Sun orbiting the Earth!

Chain of command?
The Earth turns once per sidereal day with respect to the stars.
That's all you need.
A fixed rate easily measurable. The external reference for each is the
background of stars.
And note it was Aristarchus of Samos who showed that the planets, including
the earth orbit the sun.
As Copernicus himself wrote in his book and then crossed out.



At least that's what Oriel believes - referencing the Earth's rotation to the
stars is a denial of Copernicus.

The proof that the Earth's rotation referenced to the Sun is a compound motion,
useless for astronomy as a fundamental, because of the Equation of Time... goes
straight over Oriel's head.

John Savard

On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:47:39 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:03:51 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

oriel36 wrote:



On Monday, July 28, 2014 9:09:09 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins











Join everyone else in enjoying something wonderful and productive for a



change and especially what 21st century imaging can do.







If you can't appreciate the annual motion of the stars in sequence behind



the Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth then don't bother me as



these things don't need qualification other than the visual narrative



that affirms the motion of the Earth -







https://www.youtube.com/watch?vîQwYrfmvoQ







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A







I will grant you the minor difficulty which converts the annual motion of



the Sun through the constellations to the new and better perspective



where the Earth's annual motion is determined by the annual motion of the



stars whereby the annual motion of Venus and Mercury can be translated



into heliocentric form -















That would be Heraclides of Pontus.



(I wrote Heraclites in my previous posts. I never studied Ancient Greek and



often get their names confused)





Don't worry Collins, not even Galileo got the perspective for inner

planetary retrogrades correct which gives us a grandstand view of Venus

and Mercury as they overtake us in our common orbit around the Sun. The

Earth adds to the perspective by way of the annual motion of the stars

behind the Sun however Venus and Mercury being faster all for direct

observations of those planets as they swing out to their widest point

against the background stars and then swing in hence retrogrades.



As you wrote above the background stars are the reference. Against this

external reference the Earth rotates once every sidereal day. Think about

this carefully.


I see so much achievement in all human endeavors and the joy it brings to the achiever and spectator alike and then we have this idea that the Earth is into the next rotation after 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and a frown returns as it defies the experience of all the effects of one rotation within a 24 hour day and a continuation day after day and rotation after rotation.

The only rotation that stands out is February 29th insofar as that rotation and 24 hour day originated in an astronomical event based on the annual motion of the stars behind the Sun and their reappearance from behind the glare. That day constitutes the extra 24 hours worth of orbital motion which returns the Earth very close to the same position in space after 4 cycles of 365 days and rotations.

What I wouldn't give to encounter a mind capable of recognizing the necessary modification which correlates the natural noon cycle to the 24 hour AM/PM cycle within the 1461 natural noon calendar framework insofar as Huygens used the less productive motion of the Sun through the constellations -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 Signs,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in
Astronomy" Huygens

Instead I am stuck with people who can't match one 24 hour day with one rotation within that 1461 day framework and observations that fixes the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits at 365 1/4 rotations to 1 circuit.

I know right well that you can discern the means to partition the inner and outer planetary retrogrades by using external references and it is wonderful even if I say so myself. Everything else is drudgery.