A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 2nd 04, 07:05 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

Newton,while formattting his time,space and motions distinctions in
line with the Equation of Time method created an error by shifting to
the sidereal format.However convenient it may have been for his
gravitational agenda to make the shift,it creates an astronomical
picture of such a limited value it is almost worthless.Anyone who
calls himself an astronomer can judge correctly that Newton used
Flamsteed's isochronos value and changed to that perspective as it is
the only means to determine that geocentric coordinates are equivalent
to heliocentric coordinates.



"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 "

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




"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; as we may see from the following table."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm


An astronomer of distinction would recognise why one picture is
incompatible with the other from those two excerpts taken from the
Principia.Fundamentally,the Equation of Time description of the first
excerpt refers to the isolating of the axial rotation of the Earth
from its variable orbital motion while the sidereal format treats the
motions of the Earth as a single homogenised movement and has no
astronomical justification whatsoever.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm


The Actual Main Component of the Equation of Time




There are two major consequences in recognising the changing
orientation of the daylight/darkness line as a property of the Earth's
orbital motion.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg


The daylight/darkness line is always tangential to the Sun/Earth line
as indicated by the arrows in the above graphic and represents the
distinction between the Earth's orbital shadow and the change in that
shadow in accordance with Kepler's second law against the distant
stars.

The changing reference of the daylight/darkness line to the distant
stars is useful for grafting in the axial rotation of the Earth
insofar as an observer axially rotates out of the orbital shadow
(Dawn),the direction of orbital motion can be gauged against the
daylight/darkness line.At the perihelion and aphelion,the orbital
direction of the Earth lies on the daylight/line (as seen in the
graphic)-

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Depending on where the Earth in in its orbital motion,at other
times,it will exist closer to dawn darkness and at other time closer
to dawn daylight.


The changing orientation of the daylight/darkness line in accordance
with Kepler's second law and the constant axial rotation of the Earth
passing through that line and on to the alignment with the Sun/Earth
line is what generates the natural unequal day.

The Equation of Time, with its positive and negative minute and second
values which are added and subtracted to the noon determination to
facilitate the isolation of the axial rotation of the Earth to the 24
hour/360 degree equivalency over the course of an annual orbital
cycle exists as a product between constant axial rotation and the
shift in the daylight/darkness line.

There never was an axial tilt component in the Equation of Time and
for about 400 years the changing orientation of the daylight/darkness
line as a property of the Earth's orbital orientation to the Sun (the
line is 90 degrees perpendicular to the Sun Earth line) has been
ignored.

Anyone who discerns the general direction of the Earth's orbital
motion at dawn as the Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow
will experience something new ,the rediscovery of astronomy and the
works of Copernicus and especially Kepler.

http://www.serve.com/wizjd/pics/hale05_m.jpg

If there is a problem recognising the changing orientation of the
daylight/darkness line in accordance with Kepler's second law,this
simplified graphic may help along with the main graphic demonstrating
how the line changes over an annual orbit.

http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/scidisc...00779_w150.gif

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg
  #3  
Old June 9th 04, 08:18 AM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

Reed Riddle wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

snip a lot of confusing statements




Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit
is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year?
If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in,
say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why
they are different.


The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital
orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line.

http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg


Graft that image and the tangential relationship between the Sun/Earth
line and the daylight/darkness line into the following graphic where
the arrows constitute the orientation of the daylight/darkness line to
the distant stars in accordance with Kepler's second law.While
providing a convenient use of stellar markers which do not follow the
axial coordinates of longitude and subsequently the stellar
circumpolar framework,it also provides the difference in arc degrees
to the Sun/Earth line for each axial rotation both as a seperate
motion and a seperate orientation.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

By incorporating the constant axial rotation of the Earth as a
seperate motion into the above graphic,the alignment of longitudinal
coordinates directly with the Sun/Earth line (natural noon) determines
the variation in the total lenght of a day from one complete axial
rotation to the next.

The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the
variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation
equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate
addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth
is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc
degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next.

If the Equation of Time adjustment is 16 minutes for one axial
rotation,this represents a shift in the daylight/darkness orientation
of 4 arc degrees maintained by the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency
throughout the annual orbital cycle.Difficult as this is,it is the
only means to seperate constant axial rotation from its variable
orbital motion by using a celestial reference.

Flamsteed basically homogenised axial and orbital motion into a single
sidereal motion and determined axial rotation as 23 hours 56 min 04
sec to the stellar circumpolar framework.This would not prove that the
Earth's axial rotation is constant however convenient it would have
been for Flamsteed to reduce celestial coordinates to terrestial
coordinates for solving the longitude problem.




Daylight/darkness asymmetry in terms of Montreal and Buenos Aires are
conditioned by axial tilt, contemporary descriptions of the Equation
of Time falsely attribute axial tilt as a component resulting in
hemispherical descriptions of summer/winter and daylight/darkness
asymmetry and sunrise/sunset.If you can live with planetary
hemispherical descriptions then be my guest.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html













If that's not what you're saying, you might want to try again. I do
asteroseismology, which involves converting from Earth time to Sidereal
time to other, more accurate times, and I sure didn't get what you were
driving at.

Reed


Unfortunately you snipped the relevant passages where Newton was
possibly misled by Flamsteed in determining that heliocentric
coordinates are equivalent to geocentric coordinates.

"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; as we may see from the following table."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm


The premise and proof of Flamsteed's isochronical determination for
the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees is incorrect.You
cannot prove the constant axial rotation of the Earth that way,for one
thing the sidereal format determines a constant .986 degree orbital
displacement in direct conflict with Kepler's second law and
attributes a constant axial rotation to the Sun/Earth line every 24
hours.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm







--
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net
Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have
received instructions on where to go and what to do."
Angela Chase, "My so-called life"

Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply.....

  #4  
Old June 9th 04, 06:31 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

In message , Oriel36
writes
Reed Riddle wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

snip a lot of confusing statements




Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit
is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year?
If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in,
say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why
they are different.


The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital
orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line.

http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg


What on Earth do you mean by that, and what does an Apollo picture of
the Earth have to do with it? The Earth's axis is inclined to the plane
of its orbit.


The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the
variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation
equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate
addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth
is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc
degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next.


That's the most garbled explanation I've ever seen. The equation of time
is due to the Earth's orbit not being a circle, so it moves faster when
it's closest to the Sun. The Sun therefore appears to move faster.
There's also the ecliptic tilt. But civil time depends on a "mean sun",
assumed to move at constant speed, because both true solar time and
sidereal time would be inconvenient.
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
  #6  
Old June 10th 04, 02:20 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
Reed Riddle wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

snip a lot of confusing statements




Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit
is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year?
If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in,
say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why
they are different.


The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital
orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line.

http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg


What on Earth do you mean by that, and what does an Apollo picture of
the Earth have to do with it? The Earth's axis is inclined to the plane
of its orbit.


I would be in danger of introducing redundancy if I recycled the
procedure again and the moderator has been gracious enough in
permitting a second attempt at explanation of isolating orbital
orientation first and then incorporating axial rotation within the
framework.

Simply stated,axial tilt or equatorial orientation to the Sun is not a
component of the Equation of Time.Unfortunately the Equation of Time
is currently associated with daylight and darkness asymmetry within
the astronomical day whereas its proper association is the total
lenght of a day determined by axial rotation to the Sun.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg




The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the
variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation
equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate
addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth
is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc
degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next.


That's the most garbled explanation I've ever seen. The equation of time
is due to the Earth's orbit not being a circle, so it moves faster when
it's closest to the Sun. The Sun therefore appears to move faster.
There's also the ecliptic tilt. But civil time depends on a "mean sun",
assumed to move at constant speed, because both true solar time and
sidereal time would be inconvenient.


I have restricted descriptions of the Equation of Time to the
heliocentric motions of the Earth and the difference between constant
axial and variable orbital motion.

Flamsteed's premise and proof of constant axial rotation by means of
stellar circumpolar motion is incorrect for he is piggybacking on the
already existing assumption that axial rotation is constant via the 24
hour/360 degree longitudinal equivalency via the Equation of Time.

"Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the
sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar
time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth
round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-

.... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... "

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ongitude2.html

By applying the Equation of Time,Flamsteed is basically equalising the
variations in orbital motion which generate the natural unequal
day,not just the elliptical path but the manner in which the Earth
moves through that path in accordance with Kepler's second law.The
following animation explaining Kepler's second law should be useful
here.

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html

Mathematically,Flamsteed worked it this way -

360 degrees = 24 hours

1 degree = 4 min

..986 degree = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

The determination of constant axial rotation through 360 degrees in
23 hours 56 min 04 sec comes at the cost of the loss of astronomical
precision as demonstrated by the sidereal justification in the graphic
above therefore Flamsteed's premise and proof of constant axial
rotation is incorrect.
  #7  
Old June 10th 04, 03:44 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

Reed Riddle wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

Reed Riddle wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

snip a lot of confusing statements


snip a lot more stuff


I've always believed that your idea is not a good one if you can't
explain the basics in a short paragraph. I'm pretty sure that I have a
handle on what you're trying to say, but it's so obfuscated that it's
not clear at all. You haven't even stated clearly what problem you see
or are trying to solve!


I will make it simple for you.

Does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
and would Flamsteed's premise and proof be correct.

Here are the outlines of Flamsteed's assumptions and the method he
used -

"One of Flamsteed's first projects at the Royal Observatory was to
attempt to prove that the Earth rotated on its axis at a constant
rate. This had been assumed by Copernicus when he first put forward
his theory of the solar system but it had never been
proved....Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting
the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into
solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the
Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-

.... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical"






So, try to make a clear point this time. No more than a few sentences.
State the problem clearly. Do that, and I can help you figure out the
details more clearly.

Reed


The choice is simple,what is the correct value for the Earth's axial
rotation through 360 degrees ?.

A - 24 hours exactly by means of longitude meridians and the Equation
of Time

B - 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

Give technical reasons in a heliocentric format for your choice.


--
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net
Homepage:
http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have
received instructions on where to go and what to do."
Angela Chase, "My so-called life"

Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply.....

  #8  
Old June 10th 04, 11:52 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

In message , Oriel36
writes
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message
...
In message , Oriel36
writes
Reed Riddle wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

snip a lot of confusing statements




Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit
is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year?
If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in,
say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why
they are different.


The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital
orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line.

http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg


What on Earth do you mean by that, and what does an Apollo picture of
the Earth have to do with it? The Earth's axis is inclined to the plane
of its orbit.


I would be in danger of introducing redundancy if I recycled the
procedure again


OK, I'll cut and paste for you. I see what you mean now. In your first
post you said

The daylight/darkness line is always tangential to the Sun/Earth line
as indicated by the arrows in the above graphic


But the polar axis is _not_ tangential to that line. On Jupiter, where
it _is_ almost tangential, day and night have almost the same length.
Jupiter does not have marked seasons. Saturn does have seasons, with a
29 year cycle.

and the moderator has been gracious enough in
permitting a second attempt at explanation of isolating orbital
orientation first and then incorporating axial rotation within the
framework.


Let's move to another group then. Alt.astronomy, perhaps. I don't think
a sci. group is appropriate.


Simply stated,axial tilt or equatorial orientation to the Sun is not a
component of the Equation of Time.


Wrong. "That happens not to be the case" :-) Google gives 19,900 hits
for "equation of time" and the second one I looked at,
http://www.sundials.co.uk/equation.htm shows the graph that results
from the sum of the eccentricity and obliquity effects.
BTW, the equation of time is linked to the analemma, and
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Classes/MATH198/matownse/others.html
looks at how the two effects change the analemmas of other planets, with
their different eccentricities and obliquities. Look at his main project
page, too.

Unfortunately the Equation of Time
is currently associated with daylight and darkness asymmetry within
the astronomical day whereas its proper association is the total
lenght of a day determined by axial rotation to the Sun.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg


You do realise that diagram doesn't show the Earth's orbit? It's a
simple illustration to show the effect of an eclipse on the orbital
speed.
But as Reed Riddle noted, the relative length of day and night has
nothing to do with the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Even if,
somehow, the rotation period of the Earth was not constant and was
associated with the eccentricity, the Earth's orbit is almost circular.
It's a function of the tilted axis of the Earth. You do know that the
axis is tilted, and when it is summer here it's winter in the Southern
hemisphere?

The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the
variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation
equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate
addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth
is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc
degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next.


That's the most garbled explanation I've ever seen. The equation of time
is due to the Earth's orbit not being a circle, so it moves faster when
it's closest to the Sun. The Sun therefore appears to move faster.
There's also the ecliptic tilt. But civil time depends on a "mean sun",
assumed to move at constant speed, because both true solar time and
sidereal time would be inconvenient.


By applying the Equation of Time,Flamsteed is basically equalising the
variations in orbital motion which generate the natural unequal
day,not just the elliptical path but the manner in which the Earth
moves through that path in accordance with Kepler's second law.The
following animation explaining Kepler's second law should be useful
here.

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html

Mathematically,Flamsteed worked it this way -

360 degrees = 24 hours

1 degree = 4 min

.986 degree = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

The determination of constant axial rotation through 360 degrees in
23 hours 56 min 04 sec comes at the cost of the loss of astronomical
precision as demonstrated by the sidereal justification in the graphic
above therefore Flamsteed's premise and proof of constant axial
rotation is incorrect.


Are you saying the Earth's rotation is _not_ constant (at least to
anything beyond a few seconds per year, if that ?) If so, we'd better
take this to another group. Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind.
That site is simplifying things. As I pointed out, the solar day is
_not_ always exactly 24 hours of civil time, because of the slight
variation on the Earth's orbit during the year. We don't keep to solar
time.
--
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
  #9  
Old June 13th 04, 07:40 PM
Reed Riddle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

I will make it simple for you.


Good.

Does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
and would Flamsteed's premise and proof be correct.


Anyone who wishes can go out and measure the rotation speed of the
Earth. Set up a telescope, point it at a star, and then shut the drive
off once you have the star centered. Mark the time. The next night,
mark the time that the star is again centered in the telescope. Repeat
the experiment again several times over the next few weeks, so you take
care of statistical errors. Anyone here can do the experiment, provided
they have a telescope and a mount that will be stable for at least 24
hours. You can do this with a galaxy if you are worried about proper
motion of the star in the sky.

I have personally written control code for a professional telescope, and
it tracks on a star (without locking onto the image). The calculation
to determine where the telescope should point is done with standard
sidereal timing; nothing special about a varying rotation speed of the
Earth is in there (which would have to be taken into account in order to
point the telescope.


I did know what you were trying to say, by the way, I was just trying to
get you to state it clearly instead of hiding behind lots of jargon.
The Earth rotates in 23h 56m 4s with respect to the stars (and galaxies
and quasars). That is all that matters. How the length of the solar
day changes depends on more factors (axial tilt, eccentricity), but none
of those factors affect the siderial rotation rate. The Sun, Moon and
Jupiter can affect that, but only through gravitational interactions
that take a lot longer than a human lifetime.

Reed

--
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net
Homepage:
http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have
received instructions on where to go and what to do."
Angela Chase, "My so-called life"

Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply.....
  #10  
Old June 15th 04, 01:23 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion

Reed Riddle wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote:

I will make it simple for you.


Good.


No Sir,not good enough,I specifically requested a heliocentric
justification and your response has been entirely geocentric.

The choice is simple,what is the correct value for the Earth's axial
rotation through 360 degrees ?.

A - 24 hours exactly by means of longitude meridians and the Equation
of Time

B - 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

Give technical reasons in a heliocentric format for your choice.




Does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
and would Flamsteed's premise and proof be correct.


Anyone who wishes can go out and measure the rotation speed of the
Earth. Set up a telescope, point it at a star, and then shut the drive
off once you have the star centered. Mark the time. The next night,
mark the time that the star is again centered in the telescope. Repeat
the experiment again several times over the next few weeks, so you take
care of statistical errors. Anyone here can do the experiment, provided
they have a telescope and a mount that will be stable for at least 24
hours. You can do this with a galaxy if you are worried about proper
motion of the star in the sky.


Again,I will make it simple for you.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

The .986 degree orbital displacement represents 3 min 56 sec of axial
rotation,Flamsteed ineptly transfered an axial coordinate to an
orbital coordinate.

In plain language, Flamsteed determines that the difference in the
stars circumpolar position from one rotation of the Earth on its axis
to the next is due to the Earth's orbital motion of a constant .986
degrees which puts it in direct conflict with Kepler's second law.He
trumps up some nonsense of axial tilt to cover the discrepancy between
the constant orbital displacement and Kepler's second law which is why
you cannot graft the heliocentric justification for the sidereal value
into the heliocentric model for Kepler's second law.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg








The Earth rotates in 23h 56m 4s with respect to the stars (and galaxies
and quasars). That is all that matters.


The existing principle of the Earth's axial rotation was already
present in the 24 hour/360 degree longitude equivalency using the
axial and orbital motions of the Earth with the Sun as a
reference.Flamsteed,in using this reference,introduced stellar
circumpolar motion as an additional reference and transfered an axial
rotational coordinate .986 degree/3 min 56 sec to an orbital
coordinate.

If you enjoy insincerity then Flamsteed in right up your alley but it
is an astronomical disaster.







How the length of the solar
day changes depends on more factors (axial tilt, eccentricity), but none
of those factors affect the siderial rotation rate. The Sun, Moon and
Jupiter can affect that, but only through gravitational interactions
that take a lot longer than a human lifetime.

Reed


I have requested an astronomer of distinction to handle a heliocentric
treatment of the material,despite the fact that it is not at all
difficult to determine the disasterous maneuvering of Flamsteed no
such astronomer has come forward.I cannot therefore be faulted for
taking it to a group of people who can handle the material which
predates the gravitational agenda of Newton and resolve the issue as
to why there exists dual rotation rates for the Earth and why the 23
hour 56 min 04 sec value and the method by which that value is
ascertained is incorrect.

--
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net
Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have
received instructions on where to go and what to do."
Angela Chase, "My so-called life"

Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply.....

 




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
Hans Moravec's Original Rotovator Paper James Bowery Policy 0 July 6th 04 07:45 AM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Amateur Astronomy 6 August 24th 03 07:22 PM
Mercury Odd Orbital Behavior? Brian Tung Amateur Astronomy 2 August 24th 03 06:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.


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.