A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 15th 04, 05:42 PM
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old
astronomical error from 1677.It requires only a stopwatch and a
sighting of a star over the course of two axial rotations of the Earth
and demonstrates that the axial rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees is not and cannot be 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as almost all
commentators indicate.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy.../sidereal.html




Reed Riddle wrote in message ...




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


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/




1 axial rotation through 360 degrees = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

2 axial rotations through 360 degrees = 47 hours 52 min 08 sec

I assure anyone who checks using a stopwatch that it is a mathematical
and astronomical certainty that a star will NOT return to the same
position in the sky after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec (which corresponds to
2 sidereal days).

The conclusion is simple,Flamsteed's 1677 premise and method of proof
for determining the constant axial rotation of the Earth is not only
mathematically incorrect but also observationally incorrect.Here is a
brief introduction to Flamsteed's premise -

"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"

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

An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two
revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align
back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56
min 04 sec X 2 ) subsequently Flamsteed's premise and proof (as is Mr
Reed's) that the Earth maintains constant axial rotation to a stellar
framework is incorrect.
  #2  
Old June 15th 04, 06:45 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

On 15 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote:

An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two
revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align
back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56
min 04 sec X 2 )...


Of course it won't. Because of the tilt of the axis, it's altitude will change.
But if you do the experiment correctly- look at the time a star crosses the
meridian one night and on subsequent nights, you will see the length of the
sidereal day quite clearly.

For example, at my location Regulus will cross the meridian tonight at 17:32:27.
In two nights, it will cross the meridian at 17:24:35. The difference is
00:07:52. Half of that is 00:03:56. Subtract that from 24 and you get 23:56:04,
the length of the sidereal day.

Okay, I didn't get those times with a stopwatch. I calculated them using the
standard (simple) formulas, which of course take into consideration the length
of the sidereal day. Are you saying those formulas are not accurate?
Interesting, because night after night I use them to aim my telescope at imaging
targets, and night after night I find those targets dead center in my field of
view. That's about as empirical as you can get.

The concept of the sidereal day is not "theory" or something to be proved or
disproved. It is simply geometry. Your continued failure to grasp this most
trivial of concepts is rather astonishing. Of course, the value is only a mean.
In reality the length of the day is not constant, a fact that is recognized,
measured, and modeled. This inconstancy is the result of gravitational effects
and the fact that the Earth is not a perfectly rigid, uniform body. But those
effects on timing are exceedingly tiny compared to the very obvious sidereal day
which, contrary to your assertion, anyone with a stopwatch (and, I should add, a
modicum of intelligence and common sense) can easily measure over the course of
one or two days.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #3  
Old June 15th 04, 06:45 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

On 15 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0700, (Oriel36) wrote:

An amateur astronomer using only a stopwatch can affirm that after two
revolutions of the Earth through 360 degrees,a star will NOT align
back to the same position after 47 hours 52 min 08 sec ( 23 hours 56
min 04 sec X 2 )...


Of course it won't. Because of the tilt of the axis, it's altitude will change.
But if you do the experiment correctly- look at the time a star crosses the
meridian one night and on subsequent nights, you will see the length of the
sidereal day quite clearly.

For example, at my location Regulus will cross the meridian tonight at 17:32:27.
In two nights, it will cross the meridian at 17:24:35. The difference is
00:07:52. Half of that is 00:03:56. Subtract that from 24 and you get 23:56:04,
the length of the sidereal day.

Okay, I didn't get those times with a stopwatch. I calculated them using the
standard (simple) formulas, which of course take into consideration the length
of the sidereal day. Are you saying those formulas are not accurate?
Interesting, because night after night I use them to aim my telescope at imaging
targets, and night after night I find those targets dead center in my field of
view. That's about as empirical as you can get.

The concept of the sidereal day is not "theory" or something to be proved or
disproved. It is simply geometry. Your continued failure to grasp this most
trivial of concepts is rather astonishing. Of course, the value is only a mean.
In reality the length of the day is not constant, a fact that is recognized,
measured, and modeled. This inconstancy is the result of gravitational effects
and the fact that the Earth is not a perfectly rigid, uniform body. But those
effects on timing are exceedingly tiny compared to the very obvious sidereal day
which, contrary to your assertion, anyone with a stopwatch (and, I should add, a
modicum of intelligence and common sense) can easily measure over the course of
one or two days.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #4  
Old June 15th 04, 08:15 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Oriel36 wrote:

This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old
astronomical error from 1677.It requires only a stopwatch and a
sighting of a star over the course of two axial rotations of the Earth
and demonstrates that the axial rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees is not and cannot be 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as almost all
commentators indicate.


Man, you win the booby prize; there are a lot of nuts out there but you
really are a special species all your own. I say this in all sincerity:
seek professional help. There are people who can help you.

Show of hands: how many people out there think that since 1677, with all
the astronomers who have lived, and all the telescopes that have come
exactly to the right location in the sky when commanded, and through all
the successful satellite launches, nobody, and I mean nobody, but our
own Oriel36, has ever noticed that the Earth spins at a different rate
than we had all thought it did? Stopwatches ready now!

Anyone...? Anyone...? Minibrain? N*ncy? No, not even you? Oh well.

My own observation: the thing that ties all these nuts together, whether
they be juviniles seeking attention, mentally ill, or just plain stupid:
extraordinary hubris.

After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in
a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it.

Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are
the smartest person on the entire planet...

  #5  
Old June 15th 04, 08:15 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Oriel36 wrote:

This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old
astronomical error from 1677.It requires only a stopwatch and a
sighting of a star over the course of two axial rotations of the Earth
and demonstrates that the axial rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees is not and cannot be 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as almost all
commentators indicate.


Man, you win the booby prize; there are a lot of nuts out there but you
really are a special species all your own. I say this in all sincerity:
seek professional help. There are people who can help you.

Show of hands: how many people out there think that since 1677, with all
the astronomers who have lived, and all the telescopes that have come
exactly to the right location in the sky when commanded, and through all
the successful satellite launches, nobody, and I mean nobody, but our
own Oriel36, has ever noticed that the Earth spins at a different rate
than we had all thought it did? Stopwatches ready now!

Anyone...? Anyone...? Minibrain? N*ncy? No, not even you? Oh well.

My own observation: the thing that ties all these nuts together, whether
they be juviniles seeking attention, mentally ill, or just plain stupid:
extraordinary hubris.

After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in
a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it.

Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are
the smartest person on the entire planet...

  #6  
Old June 15th 04, 10:41 PM
DT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Oriel36 wrote
This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old
astronomical error from 1677.


I have carried out your experiment as suggested, and amazingly, I did
find a large variation from the commonly quoted figure of 23h56m04s!

The first day was very close to the above figure but the second day was
only 3h 14m 29s. During the second day I distinctly remember eating two
meals, doing some shopping and sleeping for six hours.

My question is therefore, have I travelled through time or should I have
wound my watch?

Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
  #7  
Old June 15th 04, 10:41 PM
DT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Oriel36 wrote
This is an opportunity for astronomers to correct a very old
astronomical error from 1677.


I have carried out your experiment as suggested, and amazingly, I did
find a large variation from the commonly quoted figure of 23h56m04s!

The first day was very close to the above figure but the second day was
only 3h 14m 29s. During the second day I distinctly remember eating two
meals, doing some shopping and sleeping for six hours.

My question is therefore, have I travelled through time or should I have
wound my watch?

Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills
  #8  
Old June 16th 04, 03:44 AM
Tom Rankin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in
a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it.

Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are
the smartest person on the entire planet...


You mean like Albert Einstein? :-)

To quote him loosely, "If my theory is proved wrong, I would feel sorry
for God". Talk about Hubris!

But of course, in this case Al *WAS* right, and the origianl poster *IS*
wrong! On that, at least, we do agree.

--
Tom Rankin - Programmer by day, amateur astronomer by night!
Mid-Hudson Astronomy Association - http://mhaa.whodeanie.com
Views and Brews - http://viewsandbrews.whodeanie.com

When replying, remove the capital letters from my email address.
  #9  
Old June 16th 04, 03:44 AM
Tom Rankin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH in
a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it.

Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are
the smartest person on the entire planet...


You mean like Albert Einstein? :-)

To quote him loosely, "If my theory is proved wrong, I would feel sorry
for God". Talk about Hubris!

But of course, in this case Al *WAS* right, and the origianl poster *IS*
wrong! On that, at least, we do agree.

--
Tom Rankin - Programmer by day, amateur astronomer by night!
Mid-Hudson Astronomy Association - http://mhaa.whodeanie.com
Views and Brews - http://viewsandbrews.whodeanie.com

When replying, remove the capital letters from my email address.
  #10  
Old June 16th 04, 04:52 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sci.astro.research experiment for astro.amateur

Tom Rankin wrote:
Greg Crinklaw wrote:

After all, to be a true nut one must stand alone in knowing THE TRUTH
in a sea of billions of people, not one of whom gets it.

Must be pretty lonely, but in the end very gratifying to know you are
the smartest person on the entire planet...



You mean like Albert Einstein? :-)

To quote him loosely, "If my theory is proved wrong, I would feel sorry
for God". Talk about Hubris!


He didn't mean that literally, of course...

This idea of the lonely outcast who is an unrecognized genius who will
one day prevail is like the mythology surrounding Bonnie and Clyde and
other outlaws; it's just so much cultural baloney. Like all myths,
people may enjoy the idea but the reality is far different...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

 




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
sci.astro.research Martin Hardcastle Research 0 April 20th 04 12:00 PM
sci.astro.research Martin Hardcastle Research 0 March 20th 04 01:00 PM
sci.astro.research Martin Hardcastle Research 0 October 20th 03 12:00 PM
sci.astro.research Martin Hardcastle Research 0 September 20th 03 12:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 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.