A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thanks George



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 17th 03, 08:11 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George

My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,I guess the progress can be gauged now by what you,as a
relativist, can and cannot discuss and this is the price of
intellectual slavery.

You forget that I did not set out to disprove or prove anything and
the trajectory of postings from years ago is the true means by which
material and topics evolve.Again,I can point out that I geometrically
explained the appearance of the supernova rings in 1990,long before
the images emerged in 1994 and I assure you that work has quite a bit
in common with the present topic of geometry,clocks and astronomy.

You have the advantage that nobody at present associates
absolute/relative time with the EoT and this says more of the poor
intellectual atmosphere than it does true opposition and I alone
remain confident that eventually Newton's purpose and intent of
absolute/relative time,space and motion will be rediscovered as the
development of accurate clocks for measuring distance was
rediscovered.

It just takes a tiny spark.












"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om... snip
Seconds are a count of the cycles of a frequency characteristic of
a caesium atom. In simplistic terms, they used to be defined as a
fraction of a year but now we use something more stable but of the
same nominal duration.


What you lot have done is turn a clock from an approximation of a
geometric system into an idealised standard where the geometry is an
approximation.Given that the basis for the development of clocks
originated from geometry it is extremely important to consider how 1
second reflects distance within this system.It has nothing to do with
'time intervals' or 'duration',it strictly operates on the principle
that 1 second is a proportion of distance traveled through a cycle.

Here is how a second and by association a clock works.


snip display related stuff

... when relativity emerged however and forced a 'time' dimension
into existence through clocks it combined seconds as the measure of
the passage of 'time' with the more objective and geometric seconds as
a proportion of distance through a cycle.


snip

historical development the less likely "clocks measure time" can be


Why are you still inventing your own childish version of that
quote?


Because clocks do NOT measure a seperate quantity that relativity
designates as a dimension called 'time'.


I still don't see what that has to do with your reversing the meaning
of the quote. You could state it accurately and then say you disagree.
At least I would get the idea you knew what you were talking about.
However, that is a minor, if annoying point.

You make a fundamental mistake in thinking that Relativity altered
the view of time. I have repeatedly pointed out that this was the
same view as held by Newton but you steadfastly refuse to even
acknowledge what I say. Perhaps this quote will entice you to look
into the matter:

"Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are
less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them
to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define
time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only
I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under
no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible
objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing
of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute
and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.

I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from
its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external,
and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and
common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or
unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is
commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a
month, a year."

The above is from Newton's Principia, published in 1687.

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

In particular note:

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time ... by another name
is called duration"

"relative, apparent, and common time ... is commonly used
instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a
year."

A few paragraphs later he says:

"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; ... It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be
accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded,
but the true, or equable, progress of absolute time is liable to
no change. The duration or perseverance of the existence of
things remains the same, whether the motions are swift or slow,
or none at all: and therefore, it ought to be distinguished from
what are only sensible measures thereof; .."

This entire definition emphasises the fundamental difference between
the "pure progress of absolute time" he also describes as "duration
or perseverance of the existence of things", and the common but
flawed measure of time such as hours and days. Newton talks of the
apparent motion of celestial bodies merely as a means to measure
something quite independent, "Absolute time".

It would really help this conversation if you read that page, there
is a lot more I haven't quoted.

snip

Poincare originally based chaos on the premise that left to their own
devices seemingly simple rules become rapidly complex,the heading of
this thread is an example of that.


That is why I have split the thread. This post relates to the
fundamental disagreement, that of time as a dimension. The other
covers the more general topic of intuition vs. the scientific
method and the specific points on displays. I do not intend to
pursue those themes to any degree.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.
  #2  
Old December 18th 03, 02:22 PM
George G. Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George

(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,


When we previously discussed it, I assumed you were familiar
with the simpler aspects of astronomy. You made occassional
comments that didn't seem to fit with your other views, but
it was hard to find where the problem lay. I now understand
you have an almost Ptolemaic view of the solar system which
explains many of your errors.

We talked of Kepler's laws and you seemed to accept them yet
and of course the first law says the path of the Earth as it
moves round the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun at on focus.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..


Now you are saying the Earth does not move round the Sun and
the odd thing is I think you mean both even though they are
obviously contradictory. Until you resolve this fundamental
conflict in your views and decide whether to abandon Kepler
or accept Copernicus, it isn't possible to discuss anything
with you in a sensible manner.

I suggest you do a little research and see if you can draw
what you think is the orbital path of the Earth in relation
to the Sun because as it stands I cannot guess what you think
it looks like. It feels like trying to discuss calculus with
someone who has read all the books and can quote all the rules
but never learned how to add.

George
  #3  
Old December 19th 03, 11:55 AM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,


When we previously discussed it, I assumed you were familiar
with the simpler aspects of astronomy.


I became familiar long ago with the most fundamental rotation of
all,the rotation of the Earth on its axis,one full revolution
corresponding to 24 hours.You believe the value to be 23 hrs 56 min 04
sec and this constitutes an error.


You made occassional
comments that didn't seem to fit with your other views, but
it was hard to find where the problem lay.


There is no problem on my part for it is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.Without that
definition of why and how astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour
pace to the axial rotation of the Earth as this alone provides the
basis of clocks as physical rulers of distance.



I now understand
you have an almost Ptolemaic view of the solar system which
explains many of your errors.


The error is not in treating axial rotation as a seperate motion to
orbital motion.As a siderealist you treat the Earth's axial rotation
and orbital motion as one movement and unfortunately this leads to the
relativistic stellar circumpolar framework.





We talked of Kepler's laws and you seemed to accept them yet
and of course the first law says the path of the Earth as it
moves round the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun at on focus.


You talked rubbish as usual and it shows however you did introduce the
necessary passages from Newton which undermine the relativistic
concept.Anyone can now see that the difference between absolute time
and relative time is the astronomical correction known as the EoT,to
argue otherwise is nonsense.



"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..


Now you are saying the Earth does not move round the Sun and
the odd thing is I think you mean both even though they are
obviously contradictory. Until you resolve this fundamental
conflict in your views and decide whether to abandon Kepler
or accept Copernicus, it isn't possible to discuss anything
with you in a sensible manner.


I am fully aware that you now realise the error by considering the
motions of the Earth ,both orbital and axial motion as a single
motion for there is no other way to define the sidereal value for the
motion of the Earth through 360 deg.To define a 24 hour day from a
natural unequal day it is necessary to consider axial rotation
seperate from the variation in orbital motion insofar as the EoT
equalises the variation in orbital motion due to Kepler's second law.





I suggest you do a little research and see if you can draw
what you think is the orbital path of the Earth in relation
to the Sun because as it stands I cannot guess what you think
it looks like. It feels like trying to discuss calculus with
someone who has read all the books and can quote all the rules
but never learned how to add.

George



You are as insincere as they come but I treat you no better or worse
than any siderealist which is the proper term for adherents to
relativity.I have observation,history,geometry and astronomy on my
side,you have nothing.

If you wish to tie the Earth's rotation through 360 deg directly to
stellar circumpolar motion I assure you that you are incorrect,I also
assure you that there is no observed equable motion corresponding to
the axial rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through 360 deg due to the
variation in its orbital motion.

Tell me what you engineer,just in case the public's safety is in
danger,I would never sanction anyone who is so silly that they argue
against the most fundamental rotation of all,the axial rotation of the
Earth through 360 deg in 24 hours.
  #4  
Old December 19th 03, 04:21 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George


"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message

. com...

You made occassional
comments that didn't seem to fit with your other views, but
it was hard to find where the problem lay.


... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.


That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.

Without that
definition of why and how astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour
pace to the axial rotation of the Earth as this alone provides the
basis of clocks as physical rulers of distance.


You are again forgetting the contribution of the Earth's
orbital motion, oh but I forgot, you are with Ptolemy on
this.

I now understand
you have an almost Ptolemaic view of the solar system which
explains many of your errors.


The error is not in treating axial rotation as a seperate motion to
orbital motion.


Your error was in denying that orbital motion exists:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..


Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.

As a siderealist you treat the Earth's axial rotation
and orbital motion as one movement ...


No, that's what you just did above. When you said
"astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour pace to the
axial rotation of the Earth..", you neglected the orbital
contribution and treated it as all due to the Earth's
rotation. Of course you have to do that as long as you
deny the Earth orbits the Sun.

Since the solar day is 24h and the year is 365.25 days,
as you calculated the orbital motion of the Earth around
the Sun accounts for 3m 56s of that 24h and that leaves
only 23h 56m 4s for the rotation of the Earth. It is your
own calculation Gerald, you cannot deny it.

I became familiar long ago with the most fundamental rotation of
all,the rotation of the Earth on its axis,one full revolution
corresponding to 24 hours.You believe the value to be 23 hrs 56 min 04
sec and this constitutes an error.


It constitutes the only logical conclusion to your own
argument that the orbital motion contributes to the day,
but of course you also deny that the Earth orbits the
Sun as well as insisting I take it into account.

Along time ago, the Ptolemaic model said the Earth was
static and the Sun and stars revolved around it in 24h
and 23h 56m 4s respectively. The Copernican model that
replaced it said the Earth both spun on its axis and
revolved around the Sun. Historically our understanding
moved from no rotation to one rotation per sidereal day,
and AFAIK nobody but you has imagined the Earth rotates
360 degrees in 24h with the stars spinning round us once
a year.

George


  #5  
Old December 20th 03, 02:34 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message

. com...

You made occassional
comments that didn't seem to fit with your other views, but
it was hard to find where the problem lay.


... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.


That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,you are defining axial rotation of
the Earth as though it were spinning alone against the background
stars for that is what the sidereal is and does.







Without that
definition of why and how astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour
pace to the axial rotation of the Earth as this alone provides the
basis of clocks as physical rulers of distance.


You are again forgetting the contribution of the Earth's
orbital motion, oh but I forgot, you are with Ptolemy on
this.


Let me show you how the EoT equalises the orbital motion of the Earth
to a constant orbital displacement

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

The circular orbit is the basis for your sidereal value with its
constant .986/3 min 56 sec orbital displacement

http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif

Pity that you have to define a 24 hour day first before you decide to
divide a day into an annual cyclical orbit for only then will you know
why the difference between the natural unequal day and the constant 24
hour day uses only the Sun and the EoT to obtain the objective of
defining a day.





I now understand
you have an almost Ptolemaic view of the solar system which
explains many of your errors.


The error is not in treating axial rotation as a seperate motion to
orbital motion.


Your error was in denying that orbital motion exists:


There are no errors in the historically supported reasoning,the
determination of a 24 hour day came long before the determination of
the sidereal day,the EoT retains the natural day as a component (noon
determination) but the sidereal value is entirely artificial and after
the fact that a 24 hour day was defined first without the use of
circumstellar rotation.


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..


Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,the Earth has both an axial rotation and an
orbital motion acting in concert,the axial rotation is constant and
the orbital motion varies for each axial rotation,the EoT is the means
to isolate axial rotation to 24 hours/360 deg from the variation in
its orbital component and provide a seamless transition from one 24
day to the next.As a clock is used to gauge the axial cycle at a
constant pace whereas the natural pace as determined by a shadow
varies for each axial rotation,it is an automatic deduction that the
EoT equalises the variation in the natural unequal pace to a constant
24 hour pace.




As a siderealist you treat the Earth's axial rotation
and orbital motion as one movement ...


No, that's what you just did above. When you said
"astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour pace to the
axial rotation of the Earth..", you neglected the orbital
contribution and treated it as all due to the Earth's
rotation. Of course you have to do that as long as you
deny the Earth orbits the Sun.


Again,astronomers when they accomplished heliocentric modelling
reduced their observation of the primary planets and their satellites
from observance made through the natural unequal day to a constant 24
hour day,relative time to absolute time,if you choose to use Newton's
terminology.

"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

It would have been impossible for Roemer to determine finite light
distance from the motion of Io without the EoT as the observed motions
of the other planets are skewed by the motions of the Earth in its own
elliptical orbit around the Sun.Albert simply tied the motion of
Mercury to the 'fixed stars' and thinks that you get an elliptical
orbit but heliocentric modelling by Kepler and Roemer is an enormous
task which compensates for the restriction placed by the Earth's own
motion and particularily the natural inequality in a day.







Since the solar day is 24h and the year is 365.25 days,
as you calculated the orbital motion of the Earth around
the Sun accounts for 3m 56s of that 24h and that leaves
only 23h 56m 4s for the rotation of the Earth. It is your
own calculation Gerald, you cannot deny it.

I became familiar long ago with the most fundamental rotation of
all,the rotation of the Earth on its axis,one full revolution
corresponding to 24 hours.You believe the value to be 23 hrs 56 min 04
sec and this constitutes an error.


It constitutes the only logical conclusion to your own
argument that the orbital motion contributes to the day,
but of course you also deny that the Earth orbits the
Sun as well as insisting I take it into account.

Along time ago, the Ptolemaic model said the Earth was
static and the Sun and stars revolved around it in 24h
and 23h 56m 4s respectively. The Copernican model that
replaced it said the Earth both spun on its axis and
revolved around the Sun. Historically our understanding
moved from no rotation to one rotation per sidereal day,
and AFAIK nobody but you has imagined the Earth rotates
360 degrees in 24h with the stars spinning round us once
a year.

George



Historically,astronomically and geometrically,the development of
accurate clocks relied on the principle that the Earth axially rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly,the pace of this clock where
meridian differences correspond to 'time' difference emerge from the
equalising of the natural day gauged by the motions of the Earth using
the Sun as a reference to a 24 hour equality .

You are not insulting me,you are insulting John Harrison who said

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

John Harrison
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/t.../images/H4.gif

The next thing I need to hear from you is why you choose to go against
this true genius who based his clock on the work other brilliant
men,if it is incapacity then just say so but I assure you the rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees is 24 hours exactly.I admire
stubborness in a man but not insincerity for the is the creed of a
slave.
  #6  
Old December 20th 03, 08:46 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.


That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...


No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean. The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.

and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,


The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.

Without that
definition of why and how astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour
pace to the axial rotation of the Earth as this alone provides the
basis of clocks as physical rulers of distance.


You are again forgetting the contribution of the Earth's
orbital motion, oh but I forgot, you are with Ptolemy on
this.


Let me show you how the EoT equalises the orbital motion of the Earth
to a constant orbital displacement


The EOT does not affect the motion of the Earth, it is
merely a factor that allows us to calculate natural noon
from civil time or vice versa. However, what I am talking
about is the the contribution the orbital motion makes to
the _mean_ day, not the variation of specific days from
that mean.

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


Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is

ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..


Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,


Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.
Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.

Along time ago, the Ptolemaic model said the Earth was
static and the Sun and stars revolved around it in 24h
and 23h 56m 4s respectively. The Copernican model that
replaced it said the Earth both spun on its axis and
revolved around the Sun. Historically our understanding
moved from no rotation to one rotation per sidereal day,
and AFAIK nobody but you has imagined the Earth rotates
360 degrees in 24h with the stars spinning round us once
a year.


Historically,astronomically and geometrically,the development of
accurate clocks relied on the principle that the Earth axially rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly,


The original development of clocks was of course based on the
arbitrary choice to break the solar day into 24 hours and if
the varied from day to day, it didn't matter much. You said
as much in the first paragraph quoted above.

When navigation came to rely on clocks, that situation changed
and the variation could not accepted, so the correspondence was
refined to be between 24 hours and the mean solar day, with the
EOT describing the deviation from the mean.

the pace of this clock where
meridian differences correspond to 'time' difference emerge from the
equalising of the natural day gauged by the motions of the Earth using
the Sun as a reference to a 24 hour equality .

You are not insulting me,you are insulting John Harrison who said

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."


Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.

John Harrison
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/t.../images/H4.gif

The next thing I need to hear from you is why you choose to go against
this true genius who based his clock on the work other brilliant
men,if it is incapacity then just say so but I assure you the rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees is 24 hours exactly.I admire
stubborness in a man but not insincerity for the is the creed of a
slave.


I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

George


  #7  
Old December 21st 03, 06:58 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...


No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.


Funny,funny,funny,it is no wonder you have'nt the foggiest notion of
Newton's difference between the natural unequal day and the 24 hour
day and his complimentary use of Kepler's planetary laws for his own
agenda by means of forces.Here it is again,perhaps you would like to
alter it but unfortunately you cannot.

"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."

I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT but he is
essentially correct,there is no observed celestial motion
corresponding to the pace of axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24
hours.So what,you adhere to a concept which can't even begin to define
the terms absolute and relative.





and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,


The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.


It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.


Without that
definition of why and how astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour
pace to the axial rotation of the Earth as this alone provides the
basis of clocks as physical rulers of distance.

You are again forgetting the contribution of the Earth's
orbital motion, oh but I forgot, you are with Ptolemy on
this.


Let me show you how the EoT equalises the orbital motion of the Earth
to a constant orbital displacement


The EOT does not affect the motion of the Earth, it is
merely a factor that allows us to calculate natural noon
from civil time or vice versa.


Now you are getting the message,now if you want to do better, transfer
'noon' to the rotation of the Earth and civil longitude coordinates.



However, what I am talking
about is the the contribution the orbital motion makes to
the _mean_ day, not the variation of specific days from
that mean.


The contribution to the variation in the natural day is due to
Kepler's second law and therefore is a property of orbital
motion,axial rotation is taken as a constant so be a good kid and try
and draw the conclusion on your own.Constant axial rotation acting in
concert with variable orbital motion generates the concept we know as
a 'day',the natural day or relative time as Newton called it.To remove
the variation in a natural day to facilitate the seamless transition
from one 24 hour day to the next via axial rotation using the Sun as a
reference,the EoT retains it natural alignment component as relative
time but bridges to the civil time of planetary longitude and this is
what makes Newton's absolute time as something that never change.





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


Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:


The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law,there is a very good
reason why you do not give the Earth a constant .986 deg/3 min 56 sec
displacement in its orbit but as a child of the relativistic concept,I
would'nt expect you to know any better.It does'nt take a genius to
figure out that you are supporting observations made of the basis of
the sidereal value linked directly to axial rotation of the planet.


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is

ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,


Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.


You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet through 360
degrees is 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,your reasoning is this is what you
see through stellar circumpolar motion.



Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT
adjustment,this permits the isolation of axial rotation from orbital
motion,I would then remark that the Earth has another rotation around
the galactic axis but you love stellar circumpolar motion for your own
relativistic 'fixed star' reasons.



Along time ago, the Ptolemaic model said the Earth was
static and the Sun and stars revolved around it in 24h
and 23h 56m 4s respectively. The Copernican model that
replaced it said the Earth both spun on its axis and
revolved around the Sun. Historically our understanding
moved from no rotation to one rotation per sidereal day,
and AFAIK nobody but you has imagined the Earth rotates
360 degrees in 24h with the stars spinning round us once
a year.


Historically,astronomically and geometrically,the development of
accurate clocks relied on the principle that the Earth axially rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly,


The original development of clocks was of course based on the
arbitrary choice to break the solar day into 24 hours and if
the varied from day to day, it didn't matter much. You said
as much in the first paragraph quoted above.


Go ahead and say it ,clocks were developed as rulers of distance,it
is not so hard and it has great astronomical consequences.

When navigation came to rely on clocks, that situation changed
and the variation could not accepted, so the correspondence was
refined to be between 24 hours and the mean solar day, with the
EOT describing the deviation from the mean.


The constant 24 hour day is a wonderful thing,it allows you to escape
notions of fixed stars for the axial rotation of the Earth and even
the 'day' as determined by the natural variation for each axial
rotation.


the pace of this clock where
meridian differences correspond to 'time' difference emerge from the
equalising of the natural day gauged by the motions of the Earth using
the Sun as a reference to a 24 hour equality .

You are not insulting me,you are insulting John Harrison who said

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."


Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.Use
the Sun as a reference,apply the EoT and you can apply the time
difference for the keeper of the longitude meridian of Greenwich to
your local time to act as both ends of a ruler.This is a spectacular
historical achievement and you should really enjoy it.


John Harrison
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/t.../images/H4.gif

The next thing I need to hear from you is why you choose to go against
this true genius who based his clock on the work other brilliant
men,if it is incapacity then just say so but I assure you the rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees is 24 hours exactly.I admire
stubborness in a man but not insincerity for the is the creed of a
slave.


I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

George


Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.If you ever give up your adherence to the sidereal
figure and Albert's useless concept,let me know and we will discuss
the implications of making observations from the basis of the rotation
of the local Milky Way stars around the galactic axis.

I am a Christian and Christianity is at the bottom of everything I do
for it all amounts to the connection between the Infinite and the
definite or as time,the Eternal and the temporal.You speak of 'nature'
and what it care and does'nt care about but I know the best things are
unexpressible such as time and love and all the good things.You deal
with a concept which thinks it can alter time and the cosmos if you
move quick enough but it was always for men who never lived and
die,the world no better or worse for their existence but perhaps exist
only as cautionary lessons.

I do not plea for the tyranny of idealism has always borrowed on
hypnotic words which seduce the feebleminded and your relativistic
concept more than any is a testament to that,the quest for knowledge
is a mug's game in contrast to the quest of Christianity which begins
in the heart.The reason a Kepler,Newton or a Pascal accomplished much
is that they were Christian even if their beliefs differfrom each
other and I assure you that it is absolutely impossible to
investigate natural phenomena as an end in itself for man's end is the
Infinite from the definite and revealing it where and as often as
possible.
  #8  
Old December 22nd 03, 12:42 AM
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George


"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message

. com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message
. com...
My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,


When we previously discussed it, I assumed you were familiar
with the simpler aspects of astronomy.


I became familiar long ago with the most fundamental rotation of
all,the rotation of the Earth on its axis,one full revolution
corresponding to 24 hours.You believe the value to be 23 hrs 56 min 04
sec and this constitutes an error.


Excuse me for joining in, but what exactly are you saying?

The earth orbits the sun once every 365 1/4 days - which we call a year, and
it makes a total of 366 1/4 rotations in that time.

This means that in an average 24 hours the earth has to rotate more than 360
degrees.

If the daily rotation of the earth is measured against a 'fixed' frame, i.e.
the fixed stars; then clearly the true 360 degrees is achieved in 23hrs,
56m, 04 sec.

The equation of time is an unrelated concept, being the adjustment made to
smooth out the Solar clock to take into account the elliptical orbit
relected in the solar analemma. It enables us to have equal length seconds,
minutes days etc, throughout the year.

Newton's comments about absolute time are intended to lay out the difference
between the 'imperfect' solar time and the 'perfect' absolute time. The
point that is made is that all perfect times are equally perfect.

Clearly sidereal time, being regulated by the rotational momentum of the
earth is much closer to perfection than solar time.

In terms of these ideas, could you explain where your view differs.
Thanks


  #9  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:14 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George

"OG" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
(George G. Dishman) wrote in message

. com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message
. com...
My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,

When we previously discussed it, I assumed you were familiar
with the simpler aspects of astronomy.


I became familiar long ago with the most fundamental rotation of
all,the rotation of the Earth on its axis,one full revolution
corresponding to 24 hours.You believe the value to be 23 hrs 56 min 04
sec and this constitutes an error.


Excuse me for joining in, but what exactly are you saying?

The earth orbits the sun once every 365 1/4 days - which we call a year, and
it makes a total of 366 1/4 rotations in that time.


You have to define a constant 24 hour day FIRST before you divide the
axial cycle into the annual cycle(the capitalisation is not done out
of irritation or loss of patience but because of it is of the utmost
importance).

The astronomical means to derive a constant 24 hour day is from the
natural unequal day and the EoT computation using ONLY the Sun as a
reference for the motions of the Earth.












This means that in an average 24 hours the earth has to rotate more than 360
degrees.


The noon determination occurs at any given moment at a longitude
meridian location on the Earth,the determination of the exact moment
when a longitude meridian rotates to face the Sun directly (noon)
varies from one complete axial rotation to the next and constitutes
the natural unequal day.

The EoT, with its positive and negative values facilitates the
transition from one constant 24 hour day to the next and
astronomically this was made from the noon determination,we still
retain the AM and PM prefix when the astronomical day began at noon.


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...powers/EoT.htm










If the daily rotation of the earth is measured against a 'fixed' frame, i.e.
the fixed stars; then clearly the true 360 degrees is achieved in 23hrs,
56m, 04 sec.


No,you have already lost the significance of the 24 hour/360 deg
equivalency which provides the basis for the sidereal figure of 23
hours 56 min 04 sec.The original purpose for determination of the 24
hour day allied to civil longitude coordinates remains based on the
axial rotation of the Earth isolated from the variation in orbital
motion.

It stands to reason that axial rotation acting in concert with the
orbital motion reflected by Kepler's second law generates an
inequality registered by the variation in the pace of a shadow across
the face of a sundial.The EoT equalises the shadow's natural pace to a
constant pace and 24 hour clocks were developed to keep a constant
pace as a product of the EoT ,the equable 24 hour day which it
generates and subsequently the division of the 24 hour day into
subdivisions of hours,minutes and seconds.

Again,you have to define a 24 hour day first and subsequently hours
minutes and seconds before you determine that the annual cycle is
365.25 days.This is where the error exists in linking the Earth's
axial rotation directly to the stellar circumpolar figure.






The equation of time is an unrelated concept, being the adjustment made to
smooth out the Solar clock to take into account the elliptical orbit
relected in the solar analemma. It enables us to have equal length seconds,
minutes days etc, throughout the year.


Without the EoT you have no 24 hour clocks,with no 24 hour clocks you
cannot make the determination of the sidereal value,the value for the
annual cycle or the pace of anything else.



Newton's comments about absolute time are intended to lay out the difference
between the 'imperfect' solar time and the 'perfect' absolute time. The
point that is made is that all perfect times are equally perfect.


Newton's definitions and distinctions between absolute and relative
time contain a definite mathematical component,the EoT.He is being
pragmatic for he is aware that astronomers base their calculations and
modelling of the motions of the primary planets on the constant 24
hour day from observances conditioned by the natural unequal day.

"The duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the
same, whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and
therefore, it ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible
measures thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the
astronomical equation."

In his description of absolute time he remarks accurately that there
is no observed equable motion corresponding to the pace of a 24 hour
clock yet a more sensitive examination of the material reveals that
the constant day is based solely on the axial rotation of the Earth
free of the variation in the natural unequal day,the variation is due
to Kepler's second law.




Clearly sidereal time, being regulated by the rotational momentum of the
earth is much closer to perfection than solar time.


The overall importance of countering the direct linkage of the
rotation of the Earth to stellar circumpolar motion or what amounts to
the same thing - sidereal time,is that the original determination of
the 24 hour day via the EoT permits the isolation of constant axial
rotation from its orbital variation.The sidereal value creates a
stellar circumpolar framework whereas the original absolute time(as
Newton phrasedit) reflects only the axial rotation of the Earth
without any outside reference.Crucially,it is easier to begin with
axial rotation,then consider orbital motion around the Sun and then
consider the Earth's along with the rest of the solar system's
rotation about the galactic axis.



In terms of these ideas, could you explain where your view differs.
Thanks


It is a geometric treatment of clocks and their historic and
observational relationship to geometry and astronomy.
  #10  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:23 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks George


"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...


No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean.The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar 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."


Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.

I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT ..


Well you wouldn't, would you, it shows you are wrong.

and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,


The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.


It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.


The day is defined as you said above "using the Sun alone as a
reference" so that we can eat lunch in daylight. Rotation on
the other hand is measured:

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

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


Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:


The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...


However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is

ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,


Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.


You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..


No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.

Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT..


Pay attention Gerald, we are talking about orbital motion
and Kepler's _First_ Law.

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."


Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.


No I am just sitting here at home, enjoying the holiday and not
moving over the surface of the planet at all. What you mean is
that if I were 1 degree of longitude west of here, natural noon
would occur 4 minutes later. You really must try to be more
careful with your wording. That is why the correspondence is
to degrees of longitude, not degrees of rotation.

I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.


Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.


Harrison said "longitude" so I'll just believe he knew the
difference, something it appears you have yet to learn.

George


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
George J. Bugh's Spin Wave Technology conception of the Vasant Corporation Starblade Darksquall Astronomy Misc 2 September 21st 03 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.