What an awful mistake

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
I'll make this simple for you.

I'll do the same and cut your verbiage.

.. the rotation of the
Earth is determined by a clock as 24 hours per 360 degrees.

We can test your hypothesis this weekend as "daylight
savings" ends: when everyone "put's the clock back",
if you are right the resulting tidal wave will inundate
us here in Europe.

.. the Earth does
not roll around the Sun ...

Still trying to take us back to Ptolemy Gerald?

The sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min is based on the axial rotation
of the Earth in 24 hours through 360 degrees,the pace of all clocks is
set by this rotation

Wrong, the 'pace of all clocks' is set equal to the
_combined_ effect of the rotation of the Earth and its
orbit around the Sun. 23 hours 56 min for its rotation
and the other 4 min comes from the 1 degree it has moved
along its orbit round the Sun.


Accept the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min as the 'true ' rotation
of the Earth and Kepler's second law goes out the window and takes
Newton's gravitational laws with it.

Go ahead George,make the comparison and you will find you cannot have
your cozy 1 degree daily displacement.

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif

Obviously you still cannot answer the question I set
you, "What time is it in figure 2?", but then you
never were much good with clocks:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question.htm

Good luck.

Ha,ha,somebody fudged the data and tried to squeeze the Equation of
Time into the 24 hour astronomical day when the Equation of Time
defines the astronomical day by using the Sun as a reference for the
motions of the Earth,both axial rotation and orbital motion.Unless you
did'nt know the meridian alignment at noon when the Earth rotates to
face the Sun directly registers an unequal pace for each axial
rotation,the natural unequal day in other words.

The EoT equalises the distance covered in the Earth's orbital motion
as a reflection of Kepler's second law,the days are not unequal just
because the Earth has an elliptical orbit but also the variation in
the motion through that elliptical orbit.

It is a simple choice George,accept the sidereal value and its cozy 1
degree daily displacement using the Sun and Earth and say goodbye to
centuries of human achievement,you get your relativistic Earth rolling
around 'warped space' but manage to demolish Newton's gravitational
laws based on Kepler's planetary laws in the process.

This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,one has to
be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice.

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif

Regarding:

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif


http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,

Not at all, here they are fitted on a single graphic:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif


one has to
be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice.

I have no idea why you think there is a conflict, they
are both valid and follow simply from Kepler's First
and Second Laws. Here is the question I asked using the
same graphical style:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm

I find it hard to believe you are stumped by this.

George

In message , Oriel36
writes

It is a simple choice George,accept the sidereal value and its cozy 1
degree daily displacement using the Sun and Earth and say goodbye to
centuries of human achievement,you get your relativistic Earth rolling
around 'warped space' but manage to demolish Newton's gravitational
laws based on Kepler's planetary laws in the process.

Oh god, he's back :-)

What on Earth (sorry !) has the fact that the Earth goes round the Sun
to do with relativity? Surely the Earth just has a bit of catching up to
do so the Sun is in the same place at noon.
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
Regarding:

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif


http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,

Not at all, here they are fitted on a single graphic:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif


one has to
be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice.

I have no idea why you think there is a conflict, they
are both valid and follow simply from Kepler's First
and Second Laws. Here is the question I asked using the
same graphical style:


Sorry George, I no longer deal with creationist-type mindesets and
people who adopt the sidereal figure of 23 hours 56 min for the
rotation of the Earth and base the axial and orbital motion of the
Earth on it.

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

The Earth does axially rotate to face the Sun every 24 hours nor is
there a 1 degree displacement in its orbital motion.

People who can't model the motion of the Earth can't model anything,so
you wake up one morning George and find yourself an astronomical
creationist or pseudoscientist,take your pick.

For your benefit,the EoT defines the 24 hour clock day from the
unequal natural day by making use of the longitude meridian alignment
at noon.You can look at the sidereal graphic and that does'nt
happen,all the EoT does is provide a seamless transition from one 24
hour day to the next but it is how Newton astronomically defined the
difference between relative time and absolute time.

"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








http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm

I find it hard to believe you are stumped by this.

George

Without Kepler's second law,Newton's gravitation laws won't work,in
fact nothing will.There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion yet to keep your sidereal 'true' rotation of
the Earth, you are prepared to believe it does.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/ja...er/kepler.html



It seems you are all astronomical creationists and quite happy to
remain so.

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


http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif



http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...olarday-FB.gif


"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

This is not a taunt but you cannot make these graphics fit,

Not at all, here they are fitted on a single graphic:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/reconciled.gif


one has to
be valid and the other can only be considered rubbish,your choice.

I have no idea why you think there is a conflict, they
are both valid and follow simply from Kepler's First
and Second Laws. Here is the question I asked using the
same graphical style:


Sorry George, I no longer deal with ....

anything I write it seems. You said I couldn't reconcile
the two views you cited yet above I show them on the same
graphic and you ignore that.

The Earth does axially rotate to face the Sun every 24 hours nor is
there a 1 degree displacement in its orbital motion.

Then you are saying the Earth doesn't orbit round the
Sun, unlike Kepler who said its orbit is an ellipse with
the Sun at one focus.

For your benefit,the EoT defines the 24 hour clock day from the
unequal natural day by making use of the longitude meridian alignment
at noon.You can look at the sidereal graphic and that does'nt
happen,

The graphic shows a larger angle is subtended at the
Sun for the blue sector than the green in order to keep
the areas the same in accordance with Kepler's Second Law.
Since the Earth turns at a constant rate, that larger
angle means it takes longer for the Earth to turn to
align with the Sun between consecutive noons and that is
the cause of the variation in the natural day, so what
you say "does'nt happen," is right in front of you in
the graphic you yourself posted.

Without Kepler's second law,Newton's gravitation laws won't work,in
fact nothing will.There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ....

Then explain how the planet can move from the point
marked "X" in your graphic to the point marked "Y"
without moving through the angle subtended by the
green area at the Sun:

http://www.world-builders.org/lesson...epler/law2.gif

The area of the green and blue segments of the orbit
are given by

A = a * r^2 / 2

Kepler's Second Law says A is the same for any given
duration so when the radius, r, is larger (for the green
area), the angle, a, must be smaller to satify Kepler's
Second Law. Both are roughly 1 degree but they are not
quite the same so the angle is not constant from day to
day.

Gerald, it is Kepler's Second Law that requires the
varying displacement of about 1 degree per day in order
to maintain the constant area swept. That variation of
the angle then creates one component of the variation
of the duration of the natural day which is described
by the EOT.

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/question2.htm

I find it hard to believe you are stumped by this.

And finally, it turns out yet again that all you wrote
was simply to cover up the fact that you still cannot
tell the time.

George

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ...

Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this.

This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in
an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with
Kepler's First Law:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,
but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion
if you agree with Kepler's First Law.

What are you really saying here?

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ...

Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this.


I know.



This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in
an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with
Kepler's First Law:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,
but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion
if you agree with Kepler's First Law.

What are you really saying here?

George

If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there
left to say.The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the
meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment
varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour
axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines.

http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html

The Equation of Time was the computation which allowed the seamless
transition from one 24 hour day to the next by making use of the
natural meridian alignment at noon or what amounts to the same
thing,the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly for every
given longitude meridian.

I picked up on the fact that even though Newton defined and
distinguished absolute time from relative time via the EoT, he based
his own calculations on the sidereal value for clearly he uses the
sidereal outlook in determining the (false) equivalency of the Sun
moving round the Earth is the same as the Earth moving around the Sun.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them;" [Principia]


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/paradox.htm


Over the years I have attempted to keep the whole thing tight,in fact
most of it is based on just the two motions of the Earth using the Sun
as a reference and calling on the development of clocks and the
longitude problem to provide a stepping stone to modelling celestial
motion,whether that of the Earth or the wider cosmos.I quite
understand why the sidereal value was adopted for the rotation of the
Earth but the pace of the 24 hour clock day is set by reduction of the
natural unequal day to an equal 24 hour day via the EoT.

It is an awful mistake to link the Earth's rotation directly to
stellar circumpolar motion,even 80 years after the scale of the
discovered in terms of galaxies the ideas of Mach and Albert still
prevail although to the modern mind they should look ridiculous today.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.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

Ultimately we all fail, if we cannot even model the axial orbital
motion of the Earth correctly and that is about as bad as it gets.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ...

Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this.


I know.



This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in
an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with
Kepler's First Law:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,
but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion
if you agree with Kepler's First Law.

What are you really saying here?

George

If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there
left to say.

Well you could answer my question. How can you say there
is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you
understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it
cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your
views that I don't understand.

The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the
meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment
varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour
axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines.

You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in
that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the
Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption
about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts
that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is
that correct or have I misunderstood you?

The rest of your post relates to the Earth's rotation, not
its orbital motion so is not relevant tothe question at the
moment.

George



http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html

The Equation of Time was the computation which allowed the seamless
transition from one 24 hour day to the next by making use of the
natural meridian alignment at noon or what amounts to the same
thing,the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly for every
given longitude meridian.

I picked up on the fact that even though Newton defined and
distinguished absolute time from relative time via the EoT, he based
his own calculations on the sidereal value for clearly he uses the
sidereal outlook in determining the (false) equivalency of the Sun
moving round the Earth is the same as the Earth moving around the Sun.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them;" [Principia]


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/paradox.htm


Over the years I have attempted to keep the whole thing tight,in fact
most of it is based on just the two motions of the Earth using the Sun
as a reference and calling on the development of clocks and the
longitude problem to provide a stepping stone to modelling celestial
motion,whether that of the Earth or the wider cosmos.I quite
understand why the sidereal value was adopted for the rotation of the
Earth but the pace of the 24 hour clock day is set by reduction of the
natural unequal day to an equal 24 hour day via the EoT.

It is an awful mistake to link the Earth's rotation directly to
stellar circumpolar motion,even 80 years after the scale of the
discovered in terms of galaxies the ideas of Mach and Albert still
prevail although to the modern mind they should look ridiculous today.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.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

Ultimately we all fail, if we cannot even model the axial orbital
motion of the Earth correctly and that is about as bad as it gets.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ...

Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this.


I know.



This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in
an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with
Kepler's First Law:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,
but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion
if you agree with Kepler's First Law.

What are you really saying here?

George

If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there
left to say.

Well you could answer my question. How can you say there
is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you
understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it
cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your
views that I don't understand.


How long have we been dealing with the development of clocks,the
longitude problem and using the EoT to bridge the gap between the
natural unequal day and the constant 24 hour clock day ?.

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

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

I now genuinely believe that those who inherit the astronomical
tradition really are not up to the job,it is not exactly incompetence
but there is a lot of bluffing going on.



The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the
meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment
varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour
axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines.

You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in
that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the
Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption
about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts
that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is
that correct or have I misunderstood you?


The Earth rotates at a constant rate,the variation in the natural day
as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in
distance covered in the Earth orbital path,a sundial naturally
registers this as a variation in the pace of a shadow across the face
of a sundial from one axial rotation to the next,at least if you shift
emphasis to the motion of the Earth rather than the geocentric idea of
the apparent motion of the Sun.



The rest of your post relates to the Earth's rotation, not
its orbital motion so is not relevant tothe question at the
moment.

George


It is pleasent to get a courteous response for a change and this has
been a long lonely road.Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the
sidereal figure.





http://www.ii.metu.edu.tr/emkodtu/me...ion4/days.html

The Equation of Time was the computation which allowed the seamless
transition from one 24 hour day to the next by making use of the
natural meridian alignment at noon or what amounts to the same
thing,the rotation of the Earth to face the Sun directly for every
given longitude meridian.

I picked up on the fact that even though Newton defined and
distinguished absolute time from relative time via the EoT, he based
his own calculations on the sidereal value for clearly he uses the
sidereal outlook in determining the (false) equivalency of the Sun
moving round the Earth is the same as the Earth moving around the Sun.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them;" [Principia]


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/paradox.htm


Over the years I have attempted to keep the whole thing tight,in fact
most of it is based on just the two motions of the Earth using the Sun
as a reference and calling on the development of clocks and the
longitude problem to provide a stepping stone to modelling celestial
motion,whether that of the Earth or the wider cosmos.I quite
understand why the sidereal value was adopted for the rotation of the
Earth but the pace of the 24 hour clock day is set by reduction of the
natural unequal day to an equal 24 hour day via the EoT.

It is an awful mistake to link the Earth's rotation directly to
stellar circumpolar motion,even 80 years after the scale of the
discovered in terms of galaxies the ideas of Mach and Albert still
prevail although to the modern mind they should look ridiculous today.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Principle.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

Ultimately we all fail, if we cannot even model the axial orbital
motion of the Earth correctly and that is about as bad as it gets.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
There is no constant 1 degree displacement in the
Earth's orbital motion ...

Gerald, I really don't understand your view on this.


I know.



This graphic is trivial, it just shows the Earth moving in
an exaggerated ellipse around the Sun in accordance with
Kepler's First Law:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...ler_unreal.gif

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,
but I cannot understand how you can say there is _no_ motion
if you agree with Kepler's First Law.

What are you really saying here?

George

If you know the orbital displacement is not constant what is there
left to say.

Well you could answer my question. How can you say there
is no orbital motion when you also appear to say you
understand the Earth goes round the Sun. Obviously it
cannot do that without moving. That is the part of your
views that I don't understand.


How long have we been dealing with the development of clocks,the
longitude problem and using the EoT to bridge the gap between the
natural unequal day and the constant 24 hour clock day ?.

How long have you been avoiding answering my questions?

Take a look at the Maritime museum which displays Harrison's clocks
and even they believe that there is a constant 24 hour alignment with
the Sun,the museum is tied to the Royal Observatory so it seems that
astronomers are still taking their revenge out on Harrison.All I can
do is expect you to see that the geometrical description of the
Earth's axial and orbital motion is all wrong.

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

You say below "variation in the natural day as determined
by meridian alignments is due to the variation in distance
covered in the Earth orbital path" and I agree. This diagram
shows _how_ the distance moved by the Earth along its orbit
contributes to the time between solar alignments by requiring
the Earth to turn through more than 360 degrees to again
align with the Sun. It is illustrating precisely what you
say later so what do you think there is the error?

I now genuinely believe that those who inherit the astronomical
tradition really are not up to the job,it is not exactly incompetence
but there is a lot of bluffing going on.

Given that the diagram exactly matches your own words,
you need to tell me what you think is wrong with it or
I will have to conclude you are the one who is bluffing.

The determination of a constant 24 hour day used the
meridian alignments using the Sun as a reference but as this alignment
varies with each axial rotation neither is there a constant 24 hour
axial alignment as the adopted sidereal value imagines.

You seem to be confusing the orbital and axial motion in
that last sentence. The constant sidereal day assumes the
Earth rotates at a constant rate and makes no assumption
about alignment with the Sun. I thought from previous posts
that you agreed the Earth rotated at a constant rate. Is
that correct or have I misunderstood you?


The Earth rotates at a constant rate,

Good, that is a clear answer and something we
can agree.

the variation in the natural day
as determined by meridian alignments is due to the variation in
distance covered in the Earth orbital path,

Fine, again we agree, and what I have been explaining
to you is the mechanism by which the varying distance
contributes to the variation of the natural day.

It is pleasent to get a courteous response for a change

You will always get courteous responses from me as
long as you refrain from insults. I will trim out
your text when you wander off the topic but that is
only to avoid this dragging on for years. We have
been arguing far too long already.

and this has
been a long lonely road.Even you cannot be happy with a .986 degree
constant positional displacement in the Earth's orbital path

Why do you spoil your response by saying that? At the
top of this post you will find I said:

Clearly the Earth moves through 360 degrees in a year so it
must move _roughly_ 1 degree in 24 hours.

I know it is not constant, don't bother pointing that out,

Of course nobody thinks it is constant so why are you
insulting me by suggesting I think it is when I
deliberately underlined "roughly" and added a sentence
specifically to make sure you were aware that I know it
varies?

According to Kepler's second law I make it 1.019 degrees
in 24h at perihelion and 0.953 degrees in the same time
at aphelion.

nor that
longitude meridians align with the Sun every 24 hours to justify the
sidereal figure.

Again why are you inventing this nonsense? The sidereal day
is not defined by alignment with the Sun and you obviously
know that so why suggest it is?

George