does midnight belong to

C
Subject: does midnight belong to (open) or [closed] interval,(day endg] or [day beginning?)HELP..
C
From: "canopus56"
C
Date: 16 Feb 2006 11:52:07 -0800
C
C Prof. Steve Allen's Time Scales Website
C http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/timescales.html
C has a wealth of information related to the adoption of UTC and over
C time scales and links to other sites on this topic. His site includes a
C link to the 1884 International Merdian Conference of 1884.
C http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs...-meridian.html
C which adopted the univesal time day as "this universal day is to be
C mean solar day; is to begin for all the world at the moment of midnight
C of the initial meridian, coninciding with the beginning of the civil
C day and date of that meridian; and is to be counted from zero _up to
C twenty-four hours_." Emphasis added.
C
C Allen's site also links to references regarding the adoption of UTC
C time by the International Telecommunication Union in ITU-R TF.460-5.
C Unfortunately, copies are only available on a fee basis.
C
C Allen's site also links to the IAU 1995 Resolution B1 Establishing the
C Julian Day as
C http://hpiers.obspm.fr/webiers/gener...nt/UAI_b1.html
C "The Julian Date (JD) of any instant is the Julian day number for the
C preceding noon plus the fraction of the day since that instant. A
C Julian Date begins at 12h 0m 0s and is composed of 86400 seconds."
C
C Under both definitions, the day begins at zero seconds and ends the
C instant before the next day's zero second.
C
C In conclusion, there is no 24:00:00 under these definitions.

All well and good. Note that the mean solar day was defined to
contain 86,400 seconds. As the length of the day increased, slowly,
with Earth rotation deceleration, so tdid the length of the second
under this definition. That's why eventually the idea of a mean solar
day withered away with the adaption of atomic time.
Note, too, that JD STILL is defined to have 86,400 seconds in its
own day. I have NO IDEA AT ALL what happened to the JD number when the
leapsecond was added on December 31st last year.
In the years before leapsecond, UT, or loosely GMT, was hashed or
dithered to keep pace with the Earth rotation. JD was simply the
decimla equivalent of that instant length of say. It is NOT as some
people think, a uniform flux of time. It merely simplifies calendar
maths for phaenomena of long duration, like Jupiter respot migration,
variable stars, double star orbits.
The citation is correct still in that time for civil functions
starts at 0h and runs thru 23h, but not into 24h, so there is NO
'24:00' time. Clocks are dialed from 0h thru 23h. The maths notation
should be [0,23) and not [0,24).
However, you can freeze the date and run time beyond 23h. A lunar
eclipse spanning local midnight may be easier to keep track off, like
with a sequencer for your camera, by letting th clock roll thru 24h
and later. The date stays fixed as that prevailing before midnight.


---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

It is an amazing thing to watch the same falsehoods repeated over and
over again and especially the pathetic attempt to sever the ties
between axial rotation and the pace of an equable 24 hour day.

The actual astronomical principles which keep the pace of hours,minutes
and seconds tied to axial rotation at precisely 15 degrees per hour are
enjoyable as they are used every single day of your existence yet the
effort given to a calendrically driven sidereal format and its
attendent variation is axial rotation as a false 17th century fudge is
remarkable and for all the wrong reasons.

It was a dreadful 17th century oversight insofar as the original
core principles which keep the Earth's rotation tied to terrestial
longitudes and clocks still exists in the background,in its
pre-Copernican form and its heliocentric adaption to the principle of
independent axial rotation.

That two of the greatest Western achievements - axial rotation in
isolation for the 24 hour clock system and orbital motion in isolation
for Copernican heliocentricity and its Keplerian refinement were
obliterated by the calendrically driven Ra/Dec system adopted by Newton
for the purpose of mean Sun/Earth distances is absolutely
shocking.Instead of dealing with the matter that is so basic that
anywhere the motions of the Earth are required,out of
incompetence,incapacity or insanity, participants still wish to justify
axial rotation to the stellar background in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,

It is frightening that so-called doctorates have little grasp of how
the pre-Copernican equable day was adapted by the heliocentrists to
independent axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour through terrestial
longitudes by retaining the pre-Copernican Equation of Time working
principles.

The Equation of Time noon correction allowed the pre-Copernican
astronomers to equalise the variation in the total length of the
natural unequal day to a constant 24 hour day which allows one 24 hour
day to elapse seamlessly into the next 24 hour day.Having no idea of
what generated the natural inequality made little difference to the
principles of the equable 24 hour day and its component equable
hours,minutes and seconds.

The heliocentrists,on discovering that the Earth rotated on its
axis,retained the principle of the equable 24 hour day derived from
natural noon and applied the principle to axial rotation and terrestial
longitudes which divide the Earth geographically into divisions of 24
parts consisting of 15 degrees/ 1 hour, 1 deg/4 min or 24 hours /360
degrees.

As the Equation of Time binds the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day to
its heliocentric adaption to axial rotation,the correlation is
impossible to change regardless of how many calendrically driven
numbskulls imagine otherwise.

If something as botched as the astronomical justification of the
Equation of Time occured in another discipline ,for instance an
unorthodox and dangerous medical procedure,there would be an uproar but
the 17th century astronomical sidereal fudge is allowed to continue
with the consent of the majority.Are things so desperate * that men
cannot acknowledge the difference between the Total length of the day
from noon to noon and civil differences in daylight/darkness asymmetry
which has nothing to do with the Equation of Time.

The situation is abysmal considering that it has gone unchecked for 3
centuries with no indication that anything is incorrect.This is no
overstated reaction but a really awful conclusion for without the
ability to isolate axial and orbital motion,which the Equation of Time
does,it becomes impossible to appreceate orbital motion in isolation
for the purpose of Copernican heliocentricity.

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

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
participants still wish to justify
axial rotation to the stellar background in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,


Why is this wrong?

Surely we must judge rotation relative to _something_.

Why is it wrong to use one thing and not wrong to use another?

On 2 Mar 2006 08:57:46 -0800, "oriel36"
wrote, in part:

It is an amazing thing to watch the same falsehoods repeated over and
over again and especially the pathetic attempt to sever the ties
between axial rotation and the pace of an equable 24 hour day.

Instead of dealing with the matter that is so basic that
anywhere the motions of the Earth are required,out of
incompetence,incapacity or insanity, participants still wish to justify
axial rotation to the stellar background in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,

I had been *wondering* what your posts praising Copernicus and
condemning Newton were about.

Now I finally understand you, I think.

You are claiming that the Earth and the Sun both stand still, and the
starry sky revolves around the two of them.

But in order for that to make sense, instead of the stars being distant
suns, they would have to be just dots of light on a firmament going
around the Earth. Also, the revolution of Mercury and Venus around the
Sun would be direct, but that of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer
planets would be retrogade.

No; you can't possibly mean that. I quite agree that it is more useful
for tables of the Solar System to show the *synodic* rather than the
sidereal days of the planets, or at least it is confusing for an
astronomical text to call a sidereal rotation period a "day" without
comment, but I still fail to see how that can be expanded into a
comprehensive indictment of modern astronomy.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"John Savard" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Now I finally understand you, I think.

That's certainly more than what I can say concerning my understanding of his
posts.

All I understand is that this guy manages to eventually turn _any_ topic
into an issue about heliocentricity. Exactly _why_ he does that, remains a
mystery to me.

My best guess is that he is either a troll-bot or an artificial intelligence
text program.

[snip]

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
--
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

Only Newton makes the notion that the Sun around the Earth is a valid
proposition,he does it in order to introduce the stellar background
into heliocentricity -

"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." Isaac Newton

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

I recognise that none of you are up to Newton's standard or rather do
not have the competence to recognise his misjudgement and
misconduct.All you ever do is repeat the same sidereal falsehood over
and over again making productive work in astronomy,geology and
climatology impossible,at least where the accurate relationship between
axial and orbital motions of the Earth are required.

You have just one single value to answer to -the axial rotation of the
Earth on its axis in 24 hours/360 degrees and the core Equation of
Time principles which keep it that way.Oh,I know, you think those
principles no longer exist when they are firmly in the background just
as they alway were.You and Newton got it wrong so live with it.

oriel36 wrote to jtaylor:
I have been courteous to you even though you are incapable of anything
more than one sentence 'replies'.I suggest you take up stamp collecting
should you fail to grasp the connection between the equable 24 hour day
and the principle of axial rotation in isolation.

One-sentence replies are an art form, one you might be well advised to
cultivate.

--
Noah
Local noon until local noon is one (24-hr) day, right?

JRS: In article , dated Thu, 2
Mar 2006 00:21:53 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, JOHN PAZMINO
posted :
C Allen's site also links to the IAU 1995 Resolution B1
...
C Under both definitions, the day begins at zero seconds and ends the
C instant before the next day's zero second.
C
C In conclusion, there is no 24:00:00 under these definitions.



The IAU is authoritative only for astronomers; indeed, only really for
Unionised astronomers.

Foe the whole world, however, it is the more general international
bodies which are authoritative - e.g. BIPM, ISO, CGPM.

Such, being more broadly-based, generally exhibit clearer thinking.

ISO 8601 indicates that the seconds of a day go up to 23:59:59 and
occasionally 23:59:60; there is no second whose canonical label is
24:00:00. It also indicates that 00:00 marks the beginning of a day and
24:00 marks the end of the same day.

Within a closed system, extended notation can be used. It is, for
instance, perfectly clear that 2007-12-31 26:30 can only (a) refer to
2007-01-01 02:30 or (b) be an error. In a system which extends or
shifts the day sufficiently, as can be the case in transport, (a) will
be taken to apply.


The term "midnight" should be used only (i) when the date does not
matter, (ii) when the context clearly indicates which midnight is
intended.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

On 3 Mar 2006 02:26:54 -0800, "oriel36"
wrote, in part:

Only Newton makes the notion that the Sun around the Earth is a valid
proposition,he does it in order to introduce the stellar background
into heliocentricity -

You have just one single value to answer to -the axial rotation of the
Earth on its axis in 24 hours/360 degrees and the core Equation of
Time principles which keep it that way.Oh,I know, you think those
principles no longer exist when they are firmly in the background just
as they alway were.You and Newton got it wrong so live with it.

The Earth turns to face the Sun once every 24 hours. The Equation of
Time shows us that this is not exact, though; if you use a clock against
a sundial, you will find discrepancies of up to 15 minutes at certain
times of the year.

In the meantime, the constellations visible at night change.

And the stars in the sky are suns. Very big, very far away. They would
have to move at a ridiculously fast speed to move around the Sun or the
Earth.

So, if the Earth moves around the Sun, the direction from the Earth to
the Sun keeps changing. Since the *length of the year* is constant, if
the length of the *sidereal* day, the time between the Earth facing in
the same direction, is constant, *naturally*, without any new laws of
physics, the length of the synodic day, the day day, the time between
one noon and the next noon, will also be constant.

Except that the Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, hence the
Equation of Time.

Regarding the reference frame of the distant stars as a simpler
reference frame than the rotating one defined by the line between the
Earth and the Sun is as natural as regarding the Earth to be moving and
the Sun "standing still" - or, more accurately, moving with one less
motion, moving more simply.

All this is recognized by the orthodox view of the solar system, with
which I find nothing wrong.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account