#21
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Martin Frey wrote in
: And 361 degrees exists every bit as much as 359 or 15.78958789 or 456 degrees. The 3 Degrees don't exist anymore (Does this help?) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Chris Warwick wrote:
Martin Frey wrote in : And 361 degrees exists every bit as much as 359 or 15.78958789 or 456 degrees. The 3 Degrees don't exist anymore (Does this help?) But what about the third degree... ----------------------------- Martin Frey http://www.hadastro.org.uk N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1 ----------------------------- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Martin Brown wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36 writes Martin Brown wrote in message ... Museum/Royal Observatory website. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 The flaw appears to be largely your misunderstanding of how the equation of time is derived from the combined orbital and diurnal motion of the Earth. The Explanatory Supplement to the Nautical Almanac describes in great detail how the various time systems are inter related. In these days where the importance of form over content is so prevalent it is just possible that the RGO website has something silly on it. No,the RGO is taking its cues from relativistic influenced physicists insofar as everytime Albert opens his sidereal mouth on astronomy it is an assault on the eyes. The Equation of Time stems directly from classical orbital dynamics and the inability of early clock makers to make cheap mechanisms to accurately model the sun's motion. They invented the Fictitious Mean Sun that appears to move at uniform rate along the celestial equator to represent a uniform mean solar time that was convenient for the clock makers to manufacture. Pendulum escapements and simple fixed ratio gears. It predates relativity by a very long way (centuries). These days you could have a precision watch made that showed genuine local sundial time (but I doubt there would be much of a market). "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 And for your next trick a perpetual motion machine perhaps? A creationist determines the evolution of the Earth in a short span of time and creates elaborate notions from that,Albert effectively does the same ,he bases stellar circumpolar motion on the 24 hour astronomical day and goes on to dump warped space on humanity. I've seen the same explanation as the RGO in many sites,all saying the same thing and all tending towards relativistic principles.Those who have the patience to study why the pace of a clock was determined using the Sun as a reference and this in turns sets the pace of everything else will recognise the fundamental error that science seems prepared to continue with for the last century.Without doubt,the problem in where the EoT fits between the natural unequal day and the 24 hour clock day but unfortunately it appears that its purpose and where it is generated is now lost to history. They chose to define the day in a convenient manner for simple pendulum clocks (and later temperature compensated ones) to model a mean solar day without having to add the complexities of the Equation of Time. It is very convenient to have a definition of the second that does not vary with the time of year. YMMV The Equation of Time is in essence the difference between what is shown on a sundial and the time on a well regulated mean solar clock. Sorry,mate,I do not correspond with siderealists who cannot handle the basic premise that the equable 24 hour clock day is derived from the unequal natural day via the EoT.The reference for the EoT is the motions of the Earth using the Sun as a reference,if you cannot say this outright I suspect you adhere to the lowest intellectual stance beyond which it is not possible to fall,the linking of the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to the sidereal value. The collection of astronomical data using the sidereal value is fine but linking the Earth's rotation directly to the value is an extraordinary lapse of reasoning,again it is worse than geocentrism. The SI definition of the second is now entirely decoupled from the Earth's motion and specified purely in terms of counting cycles of a precise atomic transition. Regards, Men's reasoning got decoupled from geometry in linking the Earth's rotation to stellar circumpolar motion and celestial models were created with that siderealo outlook,again it is an odd mixture of geocentrism and heliocentrism.The man who developed Cesium clocks,Loius Essen, arrived at the same conclusions as I have and I am sure others who become familiar with the longitude problem,the development of clocks and the actual purpose of the EoT would also be shocked just how meaningless the relativity concept is despite the linguistic fireworks surrouding it. http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html The difference between creationisn and siderealism is that one cult group is a minority while the other has institutional support and misuses historical and observational data to support the relativistic nonsense.It is all done on a serious flaw generated by a basic premise that nonrelativists should recognise immediately,the equivalency between 24 hour,360 degrees and the rotation of the Earth. http://gea.zvne.fer.hr/module/module.../longitude.jpg Relativists are nonentities and perhaps the wider population is spared from 'understanding' that cultish concept,a concept no better or worse than creationism but that it is done at the expense of the U.K. heritage says something. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
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 -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
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 Mea culpa - I've only just got round to looking at his urls - twas like lifting a stone and finding something rather unpalatable lurking below. ----------------------------- Martin Frey http://www.hadastro.org.uk N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1 ----------------------------- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Stephen Tonkin wrote in news:NrlVwbDe68q
: http://astunit.com/astrocrud/troll.jpg I'm suitably chastised (it is sometimes just totally irresistible though!) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
you choose either the rotation of the Earth in
24 hours through 361 degrees (361 degrees is non existent) No I don't - in 24 hours the earth rotates through 360 + x degrees, where x is a variable that VARIES every day. And 361 dgrees exists every bit as much as 359 or 15.78958789 or 456 degrees. As ever, off-topic, but I'm reminded of a childhood experience wherein our maths teacher asked us how we _knew_ there are 360 degrees in a circle; maybe if we measured it closely enough, we might find that there were in fact 360+delta degrees, the devil posited. Not one hand went up. (We were all 13 to 14 years old.) When the answer "by definition" came back (with explanation), it changed my life in a small, but useful way. Martin -- M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890 Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Chris Warwick wrote in
.50: I'm suitably chastised (it is sometimes just totally irresistible though!) I've just visited this thread by coincidence, (because unlike some of my intellectual betters I clocked (har, har) Oriel for what he was right away, and ignored him. However on reading the thread I thoroughly enjoyed it and got a bit of education too. So thanx to our contributors, and even the troll mike r |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
In message , Stephen Tonkin
writes 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." Awww. Stephen don't you think a singing pig would be kinda cute though? Not as cool as a talking frog I grant you. The OP will never be swayed. But explaining how and why he is completely wrong is relevant in a science newsgroup. And if we can prevent more lunatics falling for his crazy delusions it will help a bit. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
Martin Brown wrote:
The OP will never be swayed. But explaining how and why he is completely wrong is relevant in a science newsgroup. And if we can prevent more lunatics falling for his crazy delusions it will help a bit. Point taken (and conceded). :-) Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|