|
|
#11
November 3rd 03, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Siderealism
In message , Oriel36
writes DT wrote in message ... 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. Enough. As I pointed out, that's a simplified description that doesn't even mention the equation of time. If all you want to do is explain the difference between sidereal and solar time, that's all you need. You've stopped being amusing. Plonk. -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. 
|
|
#12
November 4th 03, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
In message , Oriel36
writes DT wrote in message ... 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 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. If you take a series of photographs of solar transit at exactly 1200 local mean solar time you get the rather beautiful annalemma figure. 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. London Science Museum recently issued a catalogue with the following gem "Jet engines zoom us around the world and fly us to the moon, but how do they work?". (Source New Scientist Feedback 1/11/03) And only yesterday the IoS managed a title "Man falls in Acid" and the acid in question was Caustic Soda. You can't trust journalists any more. Regards, -- Martin Brown
|
|
#13
November 4th 03, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
Martin Brown wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36 writes DT wrote in message ... 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 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. If you take a series of photographs of solar transit at exactly 1200 local mean solar time you get the rather beautiful annalemma figure. The analemma is a hideous attempt to fit the Equation of Time within the 24 hour astronomical day insofar as the purpose of the EoT permits the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next even though the natural day (meridian alignment at noon) is unequal.The EoT therefore defines the astronomical 24 hour day off the natural unequal day,the pace of this day sets the pace off everything else including the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min,however the sidereal value is based on the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours exactly therefore you cannot link the rotation of the Earth directly to the sidereal value and unfortunately this is what relativity does. The point is that if you can take photographs at noon that describe the EoT via the analemma ,this is not the principle that spurred Harrison to develop accurate clocks to solve the determination of position on the planet.The principle is that for each axial rotation there is a variation in the natural day and therefore addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds is required to equalise the natural variation to a 24 hour constant over the course of an annual orbit.Mr Silverlight appears to believe that the EoT is a constant 4 minute addition to bridge the sidereal value with the 24 hour value but this is incorrect,Newton is correct. "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 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.In the following excerpt even an amateur astronomer would point out that the astronomical day is 24 hours,that polaris won't describe a circle,things like that,the other excerpt is almost hilarious but then again you have to read the thing,not as an Einstein apologist but perhaps as a person who wishes recover some dignity to your national heritage. "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 "We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and 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." http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html London Science Museum recently issued a catalogue with the following gem "Jet engines zoom us around the world and fly us to the moon, but how do they work?". (Source New Scientist Feedback 1/11/03) And only yesterday the IoS managed a title "Man falls in Acid" and the acid in question was Caustic Soda. You can't trust journalists any more. Regards, 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.
|
|
#14
November 4th 03, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
DT wrote in message ...
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' You know nothing of my motives,in many years on the sci.forums I have never made them known and most of this is simply astronomical forensics,material that is already available and indeed the rediscovery of the clocks to act as rulers (say goodbye to the 4th dimension) is part and parcel of that heritage which you wish to destroy.In simple terms,relativity tethers the rotation of the Earth to the sidereal value instead of the original format which is the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours. 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. The fundamental unit of a clock is a 'day'.The 24 hour clock emerges from the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly from noon to noon,there is a natural variation in this event and therefore the Equation of Time is the computation which equalises the variation.The reason Harrison was aiming for a consistent clock rate is that the EoT permits a seamless transition from one day to the next,it could act as one end of a ruler in other words based on the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours,a determination of 'noon' in one meridian location could be compared with a clock which kept pace with this rotation in another location.This is nothing more precise or exquisite in making 'time' comparisons for this purpose but you destroyed them when you adopt relativistic clock comparisons. 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) The continental guys in the early 20th century never understood what Newton meant by the difference between absolute time and relative time as the Equation of Time,they thought it was some hairy-fairy idea he had when in actuality it was a commonplace computation made at noon by astronomers and later by navigators alike. So,in 2003 you still have relativistic models of the motion of the primary planets of the solar system based on "the influence of the motion of the fixed stars" and that should anyone gag. http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html
|
|
#15
November 4th 03, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36 writes DT wrote in message ... 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. Enough. As I pointed out, that's a simplified description that doesn't even mention the equation of time. If all you want to do is explain the difference between sidereal and solar time, that's all you need. You've stopped being amusing. Plonk. An amateur astronomer should be capable of pointing out that the EoT is not the bridge between the sidereal value of 23 hr 56 min and 24 hours but rather the difference between the natural unequal day and the 24 hour clock day using only the Sun as a reference. Relativity models planetary motion entirely on the siderealistic value where the Earth 'rolls' around the Sun,it is not even primitive but it is a strange mixture of heliocentrism and geocentrism,in other words it is a belief no better or worse than creationism.
|
|
#16
November 4th 03, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
Martin Brown wrote:
You can't trust journalists any more. You mean you once could? Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 --------------
|
|
#17
November 4th 03, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
|
|
#18
November 4th 03, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
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? 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. 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, -- Martin Brown
|
|
#19
November 7th 03, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Siderealism
Martin Frey wrote in message . ..
(Oriel36) wrote: The analemma is a hideous attempt to fit the Equation of Time within the 24 hour astronomical day insofar as the purpose of the EoT permits Am I being thick or is it you. I have tried to follow this thread and it appears to making a drama our of a minor complication. It is not minor,it is a serious flaw. 1) it appears that the earth spins at a reasonably constant rate - does its 360 degrees every sidereal day. You have deviated from first principles which are basic premises which cannot be reduced further,the deviation is not just counter-productive but is entirely destructive. The basic premises such as the evolution of the Earth occurs over billions of years,that the Earth orbits the Sun are examples of basic statements which cannot be reduced further or deviated from,in this respect the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours is another basic statement. You are a siderealist and deviate from the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours/360 degrees even though the development of accurate clocks is based on the principle,you choose either the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through 361 degrees (361 degrees is non existent) or rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes which is an attempt to link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion. 2) it moves at a changing rate round the Sun which varies from the mean by the EOT. The asymmetry between one axial rotation and the next as determined by longitude meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference generates the concept of a natural unequal day.The Equation of Time permits the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next using the noon determination when a longitude meridian rotates to face the Sun directly.As it is noon at any given moment at a longitude location stretching from pole to pole,the determination of this event is always the same even if the natural day varies subsequently the analemma is irrelevant. As Newton,distinguishes between the natural unequal day and the 24 hour clock day in terms of the distinction between absolute time and relative time the deviation by your countrymen to adopt the 1905 concept is tantamount to an act of betrayal of your heritage. "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." Principia 3) Clocks are regulated to measure according to the mean of solar days. In a year solar time and clock time will record the same number of days. As a siderealist you place emphasis on the Sun's motion rather than keep your eye on the motions of the Earth,both axial rotation and it's motion through its orbital path.Because siderealism is quasi-geocentric it is the inability to treat the development of clocks in terms of how 24 hours/360 degrees or 1 hour/15 degrees refer to axial rotation using the Sun as a reference which justifies consideration that those who adopt the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min as comparable to creationists and geocentrists. Siderealism is the exception insofar as it is not a minority group but is held as a mainstream view even though the institutions, such as the Royal Observatory ,involved in maintaining Harrison's clocks (which are based on the 24 hours /360 degree equivalency) deviate from the basic premise known to all.All websites dealing with the longitude problem and the development of clocks propose the precision of the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours per 360 degrees exactly,the reluctance or refusal of the RGO and its satellite institution to come out and say the Earth rotates on it's axis in 24 hours is notable and an indication of its siderealist tendencies.It is a matter of comparing the tepid treatment of the longitude problem with the statement based on the sidereal value where this becomes most obvious. http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000 http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/se...d/005001000002 What's the problem? As long as you know the frame of reference of the time system being used their should be no confusion and it is an easy matter to convert from that frame to either of the others. The fact that the Sun will seldom be on the meridian at noon clocktime may not be known to the general public and is not generally accepted as an excuse for being late for work. Again,you display siderealist tendencies by placing emphasis the motion of the Sun rather than the geometry and geography of the Earth. 'Frames of reference' indicate why relativists are siderealists,the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min is based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours,relativity tethers the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion and therefore is a quasi-geocentric outlook.Again,basic statements such as the 24 hours/360 degree equivalency are basic statement beyond which it is not possible to reduce further,relativity deviates from this basic premise and generates concepts which are intellectually destructive. Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 -------------- The rich English heritage in the development of clocks based on the equivalency of 24 hours and 360 degrees by taking advantage of the geometry of the Earth now appears absent in contemporary thinking even though historically and observationally they once occupied the thoughts of some of the greatest minds in science. I assume most have become familiar with Dava Sobel's treatment of the topic but not be clear on the aspect that is absent from her work namely the Equation of Time which permits the whole system to work. I do not correspond with siderealist views no more than I would correspond with creationist views,unfortunately the mainstream views are relativistic based and hence are quasi-geocentric and siderealistic.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
