Siderealism

Stephen Tonkin wrote in message ...
Oriel36 wrote:
[more palpable crap]

Martins, Jonathan, Chris,

The following words lurch to mind:

"Do not attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys
the pig."

Or, if you prefer,
http://astunit.com/astrocrud/troll.jpg

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

I like the part where you define the rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees to face the Sun in defining the 24 hour day and immediately
underneath it determine rotation through 360 degrees in terms of the
sidereal value,Albert would be proud of your ambiguity and your
self-importance even if it may be the silliest thing ever seen.


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


Again,anyone interested in the procedure which navigators used in
tandem with clocks which register the pace of the Earth through 360
degrees via the EoT can look up the historical data and especially
Harrison's watches which aimed for the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency.

"If it were necessary to establish the accurate time of an event we
should have to enquire more particularly whether the time of the
nautical day was on that ship carried on from the noon on which it
began, or adjusted to the noon on which it ended, or perhaps altered
during the night from one to the other, as is more or less the present
practice in merchant ships, though H.M. Navy keeps Standard Time. In
default of better information we may without serious error (in days of
sail) take the recorded hour as in the apparent time of the meridian
of longitude mentioned in the account, and for form's sake apply the
equation of time to reduce to civil time of the meridian."



http://www.aandc.org/research/nautic..._and_date.html

Astronomically it is no different until relativistic freaks decided
that the EoT difference between the natural unequal day and the 24
hour clock day was an invalid assumption in terms of the difference
between absolute time and relative time as Newton phrased it.


"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

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

Relativity both the 1905 and 1916 concept are wrapped up in the same
basic error,you and your colleagues seem to live with the basic error
that a half-intelligent person would recognise from one visit to your
'time' tutorial. Ultimately your theories are pointless and aimless
and although the wider population mistake scientific self-importance
for some sort of profound endeavor when it is plain idiocy,the
shocking thing is that it is done at the expense of the U.K. heritage.

Again,your call.

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On 12 Nov 2003 04:08:05 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

Have a good look at this hilarious masterpiece where Albert turns you
into a complete fool -

Actually, he doesn't. Whats truly hilarious is the way that you
continue to /totally/ fail to grasp even the slightest tiny aspect of
the relationship between newtonian and einsteinian mechanics. To be
fair to you, its not that easy to understand, but since you're
burbling on about it, you are expected to have some clue. For your
edification, newtonian is a special case of einsteinian. You can work
out the conditions needed yourself, you're a big boy.

" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. ....
( snippage)
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."

You snipped the next bit, where Einstein said that this hypothesis had
been proved to be correct, to the best possible degree of measurement
available to man. Excepting for Mercury. Einstein went on to explain
how the anomaly of Mercury can be explained using general relativity,
and that the other planets exhibited the anomaly too, but to an
unmeasurably small degree. This is the crux of the relationship
between newton and einstein. One deals with larger scale than the
other, a scale so large that the smaller deviations of relativity are
unmeasurable and typically immaterial.

Now here's a shot across your bows: NO physical theory is correct.
They're all approximations which happen to match our empirical
measurements of the phenomenon being modelled, and thus axiomatically
are only as correct as our measurements. When we measure more
accurately, we need new theories and models.

And furthermore this theory itself is unprovable, by definition. If
this confuses you, try reading the works of Kurt Godel, especially
"uber formal unentscheidbare satze der principia mathematica und
verwandter systeme". I recommend reading it in the original german to
get the best out of it.
--
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

On 12 Nov 2003 04:53:17 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
(Oriel36) wrote:


I like the part where you define the rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees to face the Sun in defining the 24 hour day and immediately
underneath it determine rotation through 360 degrees in terms of the
sidereal value,

No he doesn't. You lie.

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

Anyone reading, please do follow this link, to read what Stephen
actually says. By the way Stephen, that diagram is excellent, I've
never seen it explained so clearly before.

Astronomically it is no different until relativistic freaks decided
that the EoT difference between the natural unequal day and the 24
hour clock day was an invalid assumption in terms of the difference
between absolute time and relative time as Newton phrased it.

When will you get it through your thick head that the Equation of Time
has nothing to do with Einstein?

Relativity both the 1905 and 1916 concept are wrapped up in the same
basic error,

what error?

Again,your call.

I raise you one German mathematician, and call you on the lie.
--
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:

Have a good look at this hilarious masterpiece where Albert turns you
into a complete fool -

Albert is way too late - at least 300 people have already managed this
relatively (word chosen with care) easy task.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Mark McIntyre wrote:
By the way Stephen, that diagram is excellent, I've never seen it
explained so clearly before.

Thanks! Glad you appreciated it.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Mark McIntyre wrote in message . ..
On 12 Nov 2003 04:08:05 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

Have a good look at this hilarious masterpiece where Albert turns you
into a complete fool -

Actually, he doesn't. Whats truly hilarious is the way that you
continue to /totally/ fail to grasp even the slightest tiny aspect of
the relationship between newtonian and einsteinian mechanics. To be
fair to you, its not that easy to understand, but since you're
burbling on about it, you are expected to have some clue. For your
edification, newtonian is a special case of einsteinian. You can work
out the conditions needed yourself, you're a big boy.

" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. ....
( snippage)
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."

You snipped the next bit, where Einstein said that this hypothesis had
been proved to be correct, to the best possible degree of measurement
available to man.

That guy linked circumpolar motion to the 24 hour astronomical day,a
statement that is so bad that anything that follows can only be
considered rubbish.


"Now if we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to
the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a
circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a
result which is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

An amateur astronomer should find it hilarious for indeed it is,he has
just created stellar circumpolar framework and then goes on to speak
of "the influence of the motion of the fixed stars" on the motion of
the primary planets,anyone who does not or cannot recognise it as
borderline insanity deserves to have their minds warped.



Excepting for Mercury. Einstein went on to explain
how the anomaly of Mercury can be explained using general relativity,
and that the other planets exhibited the anomaly too, but to an
unmeasurably small degree. This is the crux of the relationship
between newton and einstein. One deals with larger scale than the
other, a scale so large that the smaller deviations of relativity are
unmeasurable and typically immaterial.


Even the first line is hilarious,Albert's foists Kepler's planetary
laws on Newton and determines that Newton predicts elliptical orbits,I
suppose because you are a relativistic apologist you don't notice the
perversion but that is true to form.

"Newton was loath to acknowledge that he owed central components of
the Principia's scheme to others. As Bernard Cohen has observed, the
Principia gave no acknowledgement to Kepler as a discoveror either of
ellipses or the area law.120 Book Three opened with a discussion of
Kepler's third law as shown in the motions of the satellites of Saturn
and Jupiter, with no hint that Flamsteed had pointed out the fact. In
a somewhat parallel case-study, Professor Hall referred to a ‘famous
but delusive passage' composed by Newton in 1713, asserting that the
Principia had been composed using fluxional methods, then afterwards
re-cast into its geometrical format.121 Only after Whiteside's
exhaustive researches established that no such preliminary notes
existed, could realistic histories of the fluxional method begin to be
composed. The historian should refrain from projecting back into past
time, discoveries for which documentary evidence is lacking."

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/newton-gravity.htm



Now here's a shot across your bows: NO physical theory is correct.
They're all approximations which happen to match our empirical
measurements of the phenomenon being modelled, and thus axiomatically
are only as correct as our measurements. When we measure more
accurately, we need new theories and models.

And furthermore this theory itself is unprovable, by definition. If
this confuses you, try reading the works of Kurt Godel, especially
"uber formal unentscheidbare satze der principia mathematica und
verwandter systeme". I recommend reading it in the original german to
get the best out of it.

The problem is that relativity sticks you with the stellar circumpolar
framework,in case you do not know what it looks like here it is -

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

You might want to consider the rotation of the local Milky Way stars
around the galactic center and subsequently the changing orientation
of these local stars to the remaining galaxies (at least in
principle).With relativistic models you cannot discrimate between
axial rotation and orbital motion whereas the EoT isolates the axial
rotation of the Earth but retains the true orbital motion as a
component (natural noon).

So,the primary rotation of the Earth is axial rotation,the next
rotation is orbital motion around the Sun and the next,along with the
rest of the solar system is the motion around the galactic
center.Although this has been known since 1923 you and your
relativistic collaegues can't even figure out the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency for the axial rotation of the Earth nor how it is derived
via the EoT from the natural noon determination.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
Mark McIntyre wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Nov 2003 04:08:05 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

Have a good look at this hilarious masterpiece where Albert turns you
into a complete fool -

Actually, he doesn't. Whats truly hilarious is the way that you
continue to /totally/ fail to grasp even the slightest tiny aspect of
the relationship between newtonian and einsteinian mechanics. To be
fair to you, its not that easy to understand, but since you're
burbling on about it, you are expected to have some clue. For your
edification, newtonian is a special case of einsteinian. You can work
out the conditions needed yourself, you're a big boy.

" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. ....
( snippage)
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."

You snipped the next bit, where Einstein said that this hypothesis had
been proved to be correct, to the best possible degree of measurement
available to man.

That guy linked circumpolar motion to the 24 hour astronomical day,a
statement that is so bad that anything that follows can only be
considered rubbish.


"Now if we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to
the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a
circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a
result which is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

An amateur astronomer should find it hilarious for indeed it is,he has
just created stellar circumpolar framework and then goes on to speak
of "the influence of the motion of the fixed stars" on the motion of
the primary planets,anyone who does not or cannot recognise it as
borderline insanity deserves to have their minds warped.



Excepting for Mercury. Einstein went on to explain
how the anomaly of Mercury can be explained using general relativity,
and that the other planets exhibited the anomaly too, but to an
unmeasurably small degree. This is the crux of the relationship
between newton and einstein. One deals with larger scale than the
other, a scale so large that the smaller deviations of relativity are
unmeasurable and typically immaterial.


Even the first line is hilarious,Albert's foists Kepler's planetary
laws on Newton and determines that Newton predicts elliptical orbits,I
suppose because you are a relativistic apologist you don't notice the
perversion but that is true to form.

"Newton was loath to acknowledge that he owed central components of
the Principia's scheme to others. As Bernard Cohen has observed, the
Principia gave no acknowledgement to Kepler as a discoveror either of
ellipses or the area law.120 Book Three opened with a discussion of
Kepler's third law as shown in the motions of the satellites of Saturn
and Jupiter, with no hint that Flamsteed had pointed out the fact. In
a somewhat parallel case-study, Professor Hall referred to a 'famous
but delusive passage' composed by Newton in 1713, asserting that the
Principia had been composed using fluxional methods, then afterwards
re-cast into its geometrical format.121 Only after Whiteside's
exhaustive researches established that no such preliminary notes
existed, could realistic histories of the fluxional method begin to be
composed. The historian should refrain from projecting back into past
time, discoveries for which documentary evidence is lacking."

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/newton-gravity.htm



Now here's a shot across your bows: NO physical theory is correct.
They're all approximations which happen to match our empirical
measurements of the phenomenon being modelled, and thus axiomatically
are only as correct as our measurements. When we measure more
accurately, we need new theories and models.

And furthermore this theory itself is unprovable, by definition. If
this confuses you, try reading the works of Kurt Godel, especially
"uber formal unentscheidbare satze der principia mathematica und
verwandter systeme". I recommend reading it in the original german to
get the best out of it.

The problem is that relativity sticks you with the stellar circumpolar
framework,in case you do not know what it looks like here it is -

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

You might want to consider the rotation of the local Milky Way stars
around the galactic center and subsequently the changing orientation
of these local stars to the remaining galaxies (at least in
principle).With relativistic models you cannot discrimate between
axial rotation and orbital motion whereas the EoT isolates the axial
rotation of the Earth but retains the true orbital motion as a
component (natural noon).

So,the primary rotation of the Earth is axial rotation,the next
rotation is orbital motion around the Sun and the next,along with the
rest of the solar system is the motion around the galactic
center.Although this has been known since 1923 you and your
relativistic collaegues can't even figure out the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency for the axial rotation of the Earth nor how it is derived
via the EoT from the natural noon determination.


Now I know why my GoTo telescope sometimes doesn't point in the correct
direction, it's because the sky doesn't appear to rotate at the siderial
rate. And there was I thinking I hadn't levelled and aligned it north
precisely enough. I'm so embarassed to think I'd got it so wrong.


DaveL