Siderealism

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
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.

Relativists are by nature 'Siderealists',they base the Earth's
rotation through 360 degrees directly to stellar circumpolar motion.I
do not distinguish between a relativist and a siderealist insofar as
both are an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,the motion of
the Earth,either in its axial rotation or the positional displacement
of a constant .986 degree does not reflect the actual motions of the
Earth even if it is supported by institutions such as the Maritime
Museum.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/se...0300l005001000

A student of the development of accurate clocks which resolved the
longitude problem will note that there is a variation in the natural
day from one rotation to the next as determined by longitude meridian
alignment at noon or what amount to the same thing,when the Earth
rotates to face the Sun directly.Look at the sidereal graphic and the
alignment is a constant 24 hours and this does not happen.

Likewise,the positional displacement of a .986 degree in the Earth's
orbital path is also a serious flaw and does not occur.The following
website illustrates the sidereal view.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif


There cannot be a constant positional displacement due to Kepler's
second law and subsequently this effects Newton's gravitational laws.

http://solarsystem.colorado.edu/applets/KeplersSecond/

Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

In message , Oriel36
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...
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.

Relativists are by nature 'Siderealists',they base the Earth's
rotation through 360 degrees directly to stellar circumpolar motion.I
do not distinguish between a relativist and a siderealist insofar as
both are an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,the motion of
the Earth,either in its axial rotation or the positional displacement
of a constant .986 degree does not reflect the actual motions of the
Earth even if it is supported by institutions such as the Maritime
Museum.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/se...t/contentTypeA
/conWebDoc/contentId/5458/navId/00500300l005001000

A student of the development of accurate clocks which resolved the
longitude problem will note that there is a variation in the natural
day from one rotation to the next as determined by longitude meridian
alignment at noon or what amount to the same thing,when the Earth
rotates to face the Sun directly.Look at the sidereal graphic and the
alignment is a constant 24 hours and this does not happen.

Likewise,the positional displacement of a .986 degree in the Earth's
orbital path is also a serious flaw and does not occur.The following
website illustrates the sidereal view.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif


There cannot be a constant positional displacement due to Kepler's
second law and subsequently this effects Newton's gravitational laws.

http://solarsystem.colorado.edu/applets/KeplersSecond/

Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your problem. You point to a couple of
deliberately simplified explanations which assume the Earth follows a
circular path round the Sun. But that's done to avoid possible confusion
by complicating the problem. Anyone who wants to go more deeply into the
question will find that the Earth does _not_ follow a circular path, and
also that its apparent motion isn't along the equator, so its
displacement isn't constant from day to day. That's why we need an
equation of time to relate solar time to mean time. But most people
don't use solar time.
But astronomers have to be "siderealists" - and relativists :-) because
the Earth rotates once every 23 hours 56.56 seconds relative to the
stars, so there are about 366 sidereal days in the year.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Oriel36
writes
snipped purely for brevity
Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

As a new boy here I'd be grateful if you would point me to information
that, in your view, gives a more accurate model of the earths motion.
Any help would be appreciated.
Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
*******************************************

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...
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.

Relativists are by nature 'Siderealists',they base the Earth's
rotation through 360 degrees directly to stellar circumpolar motion.I
do not distinguish between a relativist and a siderealist insofar as
both are an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,the motion of
the Earth,either in its axial rotation or the positional displacement
of a constant .986 degree does not reflect the actual motions of the
Earth even if it is supported by institutions such as the Maritime
Museum.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/se...t/contentTypeA
/conWebDoc/contentId/5458/navId/00500300l005001000

A student of the development of accurate clocks which resolved the
longitude problem will note that there is a variation in the natural
day from one rotation to the next as determined by longitude meridian
alignment at noon or what amount to the same thing,when the Earth
rotates to face the Sun directly.Look at the sidereal graphic and the
alignment is a constant 24 hours and this does not happen.

Likewise,the positional displacement of a .986 degree in the Earth's
orbital path is also a serious flaw and does not occur.The following
website illustrates the sidereal view.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif


There cannot be a constant positional displacement due to Kepler's
second law and subsequently this effects Newton's gravitational laws.

http://solarsystem.colorado.edu/applets/KeplersSecond/

Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your problem.


I know but I see yours.




You point to a couple of
deliberately simplified explanations which assume the Earth follows a
circular path round the Sun.

Even allowing for exxagerated graphics,there is no constant meridian
alignment with the Sun every 24 hours nor is there a constant .986
degree orbital positional displacement.

The development of accurate clocks for resolving the longitude problem
used the Sun as a reference for the motions of the Earth.The main
feature of using clocks as rulers of distance is that the
determination of noon varied from one axial rotation to the next,the
purpose of the Equation of Time was to permit a seamless transition
from one 24 hour day to the next even though there is no actual and
natural alignment corresponding to 24 hours.

When Newton defined the difference between absolute time and relative
time in terms of the EoT it seems nobody notices that he was simply
stating the known natural inequality in a day and the correction that
was necessay to reduce it to the equable 24 hour clock 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. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured."

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

The irony is that Newton did not recognise that Flamsteed was feeding
him information based on the sidereal value insofar as he could not
make head nor tails of the data.This is complex issue,the point is
that far from being impractical metaphysical terms,absolute and
relative time are components of the EoT in terms of the natural
unequal day and the 24 hour clock day using the Sun as a
reference.Albert got it wrong because Mach never understood what
Newton was up to.

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.




Needless to say,without understanding what the EoT is and does,the
comment of Mach looks ridiculous.The pace of a 24 hour clock sets the
pace of everything else,including the sidereal value unfortunately the
siderealist tendency to link the Earth's rotation directly to steller
circumpolar motion throws up these models for the axial and orbital
motion of the Earth that are simply incorrect.








But that's done to avoid possible confusion
by complicating the problem. Anyone who wants to go more deeply into the
question will find that the Earth does _not_ follow a circular path, and
also that its apparent motion isn't along the equator, so its
displacement isn't constant from day to day. That's why we need an
equation of time to relate solar time to mean time. But most people
don't use solar time.

Even those who look in haste at the graphics which justify the
sidereal figure will see that this is where the whole thing falls to
pieces,both the Maritime Museum and the Royal Observatory make no
distinction between the solar day and the mean solar day.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/se...0300l005001000

In simple terms,the siderealist determines that there is an natural
and constant 24 hour alignment with the Sun even though it is clear
that no such constant alignment occurs.






But astronomers have to be "siderealists" - and relativists :-) because
the Earth rotates once every 23 hours 56.56 seconds relative to the
stars, so there are about 366 sidereal days in the year.


Again,a siderealist is an odd mixture of a geocentrist and a
heliocentrist and the relativity concept is an expression of this odd
view.If it is not possible to accurately model the motions of the
Earth correctly there is little point in modelling any other celestial
motion.

DT wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
snipped purely for brevity
Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

As a new boy here I'd be grateful if you would point me to information
that, in your view, gives a more accurate model of the earths motion.
Any help would be appreciated.
Denis

The pace of the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours
makes use of the natural alignments with the Sun,insofar as the pace
is artificially set by applying the EoT against the natural
alignment,it does isolate rotation to 24 hours per 360 degrees.By
reapplying the EoT in reverse the natural alignment returns and with
it the inequality of the natural day as a direct consequence of
Kepler's second law.

Almost all current websites attempt to squeeze the EoT into the
astronomical day in terms of the analemma and suggest that the EoT
refers to daylight/darkness asymmetry.Despite the fact that the EoT
serves the purpose of defining the astronomical day off the natural
unequal day,most of the explanations are comical like the following
NASA explanation.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html

It might surprise the hell out of Aussies to hear that the 21 st of
Dec is the shortest day of the year but the NASA explanation should
provide a indication that something is radically wrong in descriptions
of the EoT,likewise if you can represent the EoT within the
astronomical day it is clear that the purpose and function of the EoT
is not clearly understood.



http://sundials.org/links/local/pages/dicicco.htm


I can present the nature of siderealism as comparable to creationist
tendencies in a few brief postings,I suspect some will acknowledge the
variation in the Earth's orbital path for each axial rotation as
opposed to the constant sidereal displacement of .986
degrees,ultimately the sidereal value is determined by the Earth's
axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours and this is what
scientists in general forgot and unfortunately linked the Earth's
rotation directly to the sidereal value.


It is a serious flaw for the inability to model Kepler's second law
has a domino effect insofar as Newton's gravitational laws are based
on Kepler's work and the Earth is not exempt from either.

In message , Oriel36
writes
DT wrote in message
...
In message , Oriel36
writes
snipped purely for brevity
Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

As a new boy here I'd be grateful if you would point me to information
that, in your view, gives a more accurate model of the earths motion.
Any help would be appreciated.
Denis

The pace of the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours
makes use of the natural alignments with the Sun,insofar as the pace
is artificially set by applying the EoT against the natural
alignment,it does isolate rotation to 24 hours per 360 degrees.By
reapplying the EoT in reverse the natural alignment returns and with
it the inequality of the natural day as a direct consequence of
Kepler's second law.

Almost all current websites attempt to squeeze the EoT into the
astronomical day in terms of the analemma and suggest that the EoT
refers to daylight/darkness asymmetry.Despite the fact that the EoT
serves the purpose of defining the astronomical day off the natural
unequal day,most of the explanations are comical like the following
NASA explanation.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html

It might surprise the hell out of Aussies to hear that the 21 st of
Dec is the shortest day of the year but the NASA explanation should
provide a indication that something is radically wrong in descriptions
of the EoT,likewise if you can represent the EoT within the
astronomical day it is clear that the purpose and function of the EoT
is not clearly understood.



http://sundials.org/links/local/pages/dicicco.htm


I can present the nature of siderealism as comparable to creationist
tendencies in a few brief postings,I suspect some will acknowledge the
variation in the Earth's orbital path for each axial rotation as
opposed to the constant sidereal displacement of .986
degrees,ultimately the sidereal value is determined by the Earth's
axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours and this is what
scientists in general forgot and unfortunately linked the Earth's
rotation directly to the sidereal value.


It is a serious flaw for the inability to model Kepler's second law
has a domino effect insofar as Newton's gravitational laws are based
on Kepler's work and the Earth is not exempt from either.

OK. I can sit outside my back door and (with a decent quartz watch) note
the time and position that the sun sets each day. I can do the same with
a bright star disappearing behind a radio mast a couple of miles away. I
know, by my own measurement, that one event takes less time to repeat
than the other. No 'scientific establishment' is necessary to show me
this.
My question was genuine, as I don't accept 'establishment dogma' any
more than the next man, but you didn't answer my question, you gave me
what sounded suspiciously like 'your dogma'.
My question was, can you give a more accurate model?

Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
*******************************************

DT wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
DT wrote in message
...
In message , Oriel36
writes
snipped purely for brevity
Simply stated,siderealism is comparable with creationism and
geocentrism,this is not an insult,it is an observational and
historical fact and unfortunately all those who adopt the relativistic
concept are 'siderealists' who cannot even model the motions of the
Earth correctly never mind the wider cosmos.

As a new boy here I'd be grateful if you would point me to information
that, in your view, gives a more accurate model of the earths motion.
Any help would be appreciated.
Denis

The pace of the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours
makes use of the natural alignments with the Sun,insofar as the pace
is artificially set by applying the EoT against the natural
alignment,it does isolate rotation to 24 hours per 360 degrees.By
reapplying the EoT in reverse the natural alignment returns and with
it the inequality of the natural day as a direct consequence of
Kepler's second law.

Almost all current websites attempt to squeeze the EoT into the
astronomical day in terms of the analemma and suggest that the EoT
refers to daylight/darkness asymmetry.Despite the fact that the EoT
serves the purpose of defining the astronomical day off the natural
unequal day,most of the explanations are comical like the following
NASA explanation.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html

It might surprise the hell out of Aussies to hear that the 21 st of
Dec is the shortest day of the year but the NASA explanation should
provide a indication that something is radically wrong in descriptions
of the EoT,likewise if you can represent the EoT within the
astronomical day it is clear that the purpose and function of the EoT
is not clearly understood.



http://sundials.org/links/local/pages/dicicco.htm


I can present the nature of siderealism as comparable to creationist
tendencies in a few brief postings,I suspect some will acknowledge the
variation in the Earth's orbital path for each axial rotation as
opposed to the constant sidereal displacement of .986
degrees,ultimately the sidereal value is determined by the Earth's
axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours and this is what
scientists in general forgot and unfortunately linked the Earth's
rotation directly to the sidereal value.


It is a serious flaw for the inability to model Kepler's second law
has a domino effect insofar as Newton's gravitational laws are based
on Kepler's work and the Earth is not exempt from either.

OK. I can sit outside my back door and (with a decent quartz watch) note
the time and position that the sun sets each day. I can do the same with
a bright star disappearing behind a radio mast a couple of miles away. I
know, by my own measurement, that one event takes less time to repeat
than the other. No 'scientific establishment' is necessary to show me
this.

The Sun does not set,the Earth rotates and moves through its orbital
path simultaneously,when you shift emphasis to the motions of the
Earth using the Sun as a reference,the meridian alignment at noon or
what amounts to the same thing,when the Earth rotates to face the Sun
directly generates a variation from one axial rotation to the
next,this is the natural unequal day.The determination for the
equality of the 24 hour day off this natural unequal day is via the
EoT where 1 hour =15 degrees and 24 hours = 360 degrees.

I reiterate that the adoption of the sidereal value for the rotation
of the Earth is an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,it
does'nt happen for not only is there no alignment with the Sun
corresponding to 24 hours but there is no constant positional orbital
displacement corresponding to .986 degrees.The description you give of
the Sun 'setting' is typical of siderealist tendencies,this is not an
insult nor is it intended as such.



My question was genuine, as I don't accept 'establishment dogma' any
more than the next man, but you didn't answer my question, you gave me
what sounded suspiciously like 'your dogma'.
My question was, can you give a more accurate model?

Denis

I give it to you in graphic form,here it is again,a
siderealist/relativist gives the Earth a constant orbital displacement
whereas the EoT retains the natural variation in a day using the Sun
as a reference as one of its components,the sidereal value does not.

Your call !.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Snipped purely for the sake of bandwidth
The Sun does not set,the Earth rotates and moves through its orbital
path simultaneously,when you shift emphasis to the motions of the
Earth using the Sun as a reference,the meridian alignment at noon or
what amounts to the same thing,when the Earth rotates to face the Sun
directly generates a variation from one axial rotation to the
next,this is the natural unequal day.The determination for the
equality of the 24 hour day off this natural unequal day is via the
EoT where 1 hour =15 degrees and 24 hours = 360 degrees.

I reiterate that the adoption of the sidereal value for the rotation
of the Earth is an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,it
does'nt happen for not only is there no alignment with the Sun
corresponding to 24 hours but there is no constant positional orbital
displacement corresponding to .986 degrees.The description you give of
the Sun 'setting' is typical of siderealist tendencies,this is not an
insult nor is it intended as such.



My question was genuine, as I don't accept 'establishment dogma' any
more than the next man, but you didn't answer my question, you gave me
what sounded suspiciously like 'your dogma'.
My question was, can you give a more accurate model?

Denis

I give it to you in graphic form,here it is again,a
siderealist/relativist gives the Earth a constant orbital displacement
whereas the EoT retains the natural variation in a day using the Sun
as a reference as one of its components,the sidereal value does not.

Your call !.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

I'm with you now !
I don't know anyone who thinks the earth has a constant orbital
displacement, including the scientific establishment. Perhaps all we
have here is a problem of semantics.
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply and I'm glad we all agree.
Down with siderealists !

Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
*******************************************

DT wrote in message ...
Snipped purely for the sake of bandwidth
The Sun does not set,the Earth rotates and moves through its orbital
path simultaneously,when you shift emphasis to the motions of the
Earth using the Sun as a reference,the meridian alignment at noon or
what amounts to the same thing,when the Earth rotates to face the Sun
directly generates a variation from one axial rotation to the
next,this is the natural unequal day.The determination for the
equality of the 24 hour day off this natural unequal day is via the
EoT where 1 hour =15 degrees and 24 hours = 360 degrees.

I reiterate that the adoption of the sidereal value for the rotation
of the Earth is an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism,it
does'nt happen for not only is there no alignment with the Sun
corresponding to 24 hours but there is no constant positional orbital
displacement corresponding to .986 degrees.The description you give of
the Sun 'setting' is typical of siderealist tendencies,this is not an
insult nor is it intended as such.



My question was genuine, as I don't accept 'establishment dogma' any
more than the next man, but you didn't answer my question, you gave me
what sounded suspiciously like 'your dogma'.
My question was, can you give a more accurate model?

Denis

I give it to you in graphic form,here it is again,a
siderealist/relativist gives the Earth a constant orbital displacement
whereas the EoT retains the natural variation in a day using the Sun
as a reference as one of its components,the sidereal value does not.

Your call !.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

I'm with you now !
I don't know anyone who thinks the earth has a constant orbital
displacement, including the scientific establishment. Perhaps all we
have here is a problem of semantics.

No,it is a serious flaw and unfortunately most of the big institutions
go along with the siderealist view,again here is the Maritme
Museum/Royal Observatory website.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

It is a sort of intellectual checkmate,for if the rotation of the
Earth through 360 degrees is adopted you end up with circular orbits
and constant positional displacements via siderealism,the other option
is to go back to the astronomical definition for rotation in 24 hours
but Newton defined and distinguished between the natural unequal day
and the 24 hour clock day in terms of the difference between absolute
time and relative time.

I will not labor the point beyond what is necessary but all those who
adhere to relativistic principles are siderealists.The U.K. heritage
of the development of clocks,geometry and astronomy is presently in
shambles although I suspect that many would say otherwise.The museum
which possesses Harrison's clocks seems not to mind that they tie the
Earth's 360 degree rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion all
all for the sake of relativistic nonsense.

http://www.jtmedia.com/angstrom/xfil...elativity.html





Thanks for taking the trouble to reply and I'm glad we all agree.
Down with siderealists !

Denis

Hey,its your national heritage that got trampled on.

Thanks for your reply, which, I'm sorry to say, was as expected.
Here's a comment on semantics that you probably got, but I'll say it
anyway, and a couple of definitions that it pays to remember (and try to
understand).

'I'm with you now' could mean I understand what you mean', or 'I'm on
your side' or even more likely, 'I've interpreted what you wrote
according to what I believe to be your motives'

Time; The perceived continuing progression of existence.

Second (time); An arbitrary definition of an interval of time, based on
a recurring event that is perceived to be regular (by consensus), for
the purpose of measurement and calculation.

You've had your three strikes on 'show me a more accurate model' so now
your out AFAIC.
BTW my heritage, good and bad, is robust enough for any amount of
trampling, and will certainly outlive anything written here.

Denis (A clockmaker, among other things)
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
*******************************************