Leap second proposal

oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 29, 3:56 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 29, 12:30 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

Your misplaced brief that Harrison would be a supporter of yours is
astonishing!
The move to more and more accurate clocks which Harrison began is the start
if the process which led to your hated leap seconds.

Now the process of rewriting history that was always the sign of a
totalitarian regime,after years of insisting the Earth turns 1465
times in 1461 days or 4 complete rotations off the actual value where
24 hour cycles and rotations keep in step,the switch is to speaking of
clock accuracy beginning with Harrison.

You are only acting according to your nature but it doesn't account
for everyone,the sudden shift away from the 'solar vs sidereal'
fiction to the new story which assigns a 24 hour rotation in the year
1820 would normally have signaled that rewriting fiction to support
more of the same is crippling astronomy and terrestrial sciences.

As usual you are wrong. Until the 1820s the second was not well enough
defined to accurately measure the length of the mean solar day.


The new story is that in the year 1820,the Earth turned once in
exactly 24 hours and now has diverged from a tiny fraction in order to
posit the assertion that the Earth is slowing down and the need to
sever the ties between daily rotation and accurate clocks.It is not
that you are unrepentant or unapologetic- you simply have this
unfortunate ability not to see what you don't want to and a trait
that is pronounced among empiricists -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about
23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA
Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or
86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased
by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA

So,the error becomes compounded as the Ra/Dec reckoning insists on a
mindnumbing 1465 rotations in 1461 days while now retaining rotation
once in 24 hours.

The changing day length is demonstrated by geology. And also the regression
of the Moon's orbit which is linked to this is measured using the laser
reflectors left on the Moon. You've snipped any reference to this from
previous posts so you can't pretend you never knew.


The empirical mind,if it can be called that,descends into unlimited
assertions when faced with something as simple as one 24 hour day and
one rotation keeping in step and how this beautiful fact is an
outgrowth of the original set of references which uses the daily
return of the central Star and the annual return of a distant star
where they mesh as a proportion that reduces to 365 1/4 rotations per
circuit and formatted naturally as 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year
of 366 rotations.As daily rotation is an entirely separate motion to
orbital motion,the 1/4 day left out for 4 years/4 annual circuits is
picked up by the naturally occurring day/rotation that was originally
noticed by the Egyptians using Sirius.















The enemy of your enemy (the Royal Society) is not your friend.

I don't have enemies,I have astronomical tradition on my side, a love
of creation and human understanding of it and by God,no student
interested in astronomy and terrestrial sciences will ever suffer
again from the most dishonest and fraudulent bunch of people ever to
set foot on the planet.

You answer to a new story now,one that is equally as bad as the last
one -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about
23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA
Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or
86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased
by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA

None of you have the right to rewrite history and that is exactly what
is happening to suit the satellite era.

I note you snipped this from my post. Or maybe you were trying to rewrite
history.


How dare any of you take liberties with humanity's astronomical
heritage !,what right have any of you to knowingly turn the most
productive and creative discipline that governs all other sciences
into an intellectual desert for the sake of a few late 17th century
numbskulls who decided to model stellar circumpolar motion using the
Earth's dynamics within the confines of the civil calendar system ?.

The astronomical heritage is important to history by the universe couldn't
care less.
All our astronomy is just a description of how the universe works.
Science is there to find out the facts and explain them. You want the
universe to behave in a particular way and so you ignore the facts and
delude yourself by withdrawing into a make-believe world.
You're wrong!




The ultimate choice empiricists have allowed themselves above all the
other unlimited choices and assertions is the choice not to see what
they do not want to but this does not account for why people are
behaving in such a way en masse.


That is your speciality: self delusion.


Why do it when it is easier just to
look at how the systems developed and even how Ra/Dec is a clockwork
outrigger of the Lat/Long and 24 hour AM/PM systems.

You snipped the text below again. Why?


Actually you can see Sirius during the day. Like Venus it's bright enough
to be visible at noon if you know where to look. But the best way to find
Sirius in daytime is to use telescope on an equatorial mount. You show your
ignorance all the time in your posts and your belief that an equatorial
mount is not aligned with the meridian is an example of this ignorance. In
the days before goto telescopes the astronomical society I belonged to were
asked by a vey rich but inexperienced amateur to help her observe planets
with a minimum of setting up time. An essential component of the process we
set up for her was a sidereal time clock running on a Commodore Pet.

In sci.astro.amateur message 257057113378488933.947967acridiniumester-
, Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:56:25, Mike
Collins posted:

As usual you are wrong. Until the 1820s the second was not well enough
defined to accurately measure the length of the mean solar day.

Surely at that time the length of the mean solar day was exactly 86400
seconds, from the definition of the second. But the implementation of
the second and the measurement of the length of a solar day were perhaps
not good enough to detect the variation of the latter - though I suspect
Jack Aubrey could have done it.


As regards Leap Seconds and their abolition :

The standard of Scientific Time should be the SI second as
internationally defined, and implemented as a suitable average of
results from NPL, NIST, etc. as at present.

The standard of Civil Time of Day should have 24 hours of 60 minutes of
60 Civil Seconds every day (apart from Summer Time changes and shifts of
Time Zone). The length of the Civil Second should be an integer number
of SI nanoseconds, that number to be recalculated by
BIPM/BIH/IERS/whoever for use over the next six Civil Greenwich Standard
Months (in lieu of their Leap second announcements) to keep Civil Time
locked as at present to mean Solar Time.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Apologies for a bit of housekeeping.

The precession of the equinoxes was considered a long term axial trait
but because annual precession of the polar coordinates to the central
Sun now displaces the older perspective,the long term orbital
precession requires a different explanation.I can only assume that a
person who uses the analogy of a broom for constant axial orientation
throughout an annual orbit and a central object to represent the Sun
will quickly grasp the significance of rearranging the perspectives
and especially axial precession as the polar coordinates are carried
around in a circle to the central Sun and as the cause of the polar
day/night cycle.

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.


Yes or no?