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?)

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
-----------------------------

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.

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

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
-----------------------------

Stephen Tonkin wrote in news:NrlVwbDe68q
:

http://astunit.com/astrocrud/troll.jpg

I'm suitably chastised (it is sometimes just totally irresistible though!)

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

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

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

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