No standard

wrote:

Absolute time/relative time refers to the Equation of Time .

Not in my understanding. The equation of time is an adjustment between
the mean solar day and the solar day. Due to non-uniform motion round
an ellipse they differ from day to day but, a year has exactly the
same number of solar days as mean solar days.

However if I take a solar day or a mean solar day as a rotation of 360
degrees, how come noon will happen in the middle of the night in 6
months time?

I don't quite see what this has to do with Newton or Einstein or
Flamsteed.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

This final posting is for a true Englishman - John Harrison.His
timekeeper for longitude is based on axial rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees in 24 hours even though a hybrid version was
developed later based on stellar circumpolar navigation.The answer is
before you as you look at a clock on the wall and even though digital
clocks are common,people still love the way a clock keeps cyclical pace
with the day through the motion of the Earth.

It is true that scientists managed to bury the 24hour/360 deg
equivalency but most people feel uncomfortable with the alternative
value and with good reason,it is wrong.Being cruel to Harrison in his
lifetime has morphed to being cruel to all humanity in ours and the
value of English fairness must be measured in courage which corrects
this awful scientific eyesore.

Pay heed to Harrison and the values to which he set his wondrous
instrument.





"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

John Harrison

wrote:

This final posting is for a true Englishman - John Harrison.

Agreed - a phenomenal achievement .

If I look at a central point and then walk round it and, while I'm
walking make a series, say 10, 360 degree axial rotations while I
complete the orbit round the central point, there will only be two
points where I complete the 360 degree turn and find myself facing the
central point.

I could make a clock, as Harrison did, that takes as its guide, a
rotation from central point to central point or I could make a clock
that takes as its guide a 360 degree rotation. The former is good for
most things terrestrial (though it needs the equation of time to find
the time I shall actually be facing the central point. The latter, 360
degree clock, is a more useful measurer for astronomy.



Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:12:10 GMT, Mark Ayliffe wrote:
On or about 2005-02-23,
Pete Lawrence illuminated us with:
On 23 Feb 2005 10:11:47 -0800, wrote:
[snip]
Big topics contain big nuts...

Aren't they called Snickers now? :-)

Where does Marathon fit into this then?

When you get to the dentist?


Tim
--
This is not my helicopter.

Martin Frey wrote:
wrote:

This final posting is for a true Englishman - John Harrison.

Agreed - a phenomenal achievement .

If I look at a central point and then walk round it and, while I'm
walking make a series, say 10, 360 degree axial rotations while I
complete the orbit round the central point, there will only be two
points where I complete the 360 degree turn and find myself facing
the
central point.

I could make a clock, as Harrison did, that takes as its guide, a
rotation from central point to central point or I could make a clock
that takes as its guide a 360 degree rotation. The former is good for
most things terrestrial (though it needs the equation of time to find
the time I shall actually be facing the central point. The latter,
360
degree clock, is a more useful measurer for astronomy.



Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47


You really need to speak to a sundialist who will confirm that the
discrete values of minutes and seconds added to or subtracted from the
noon determination via axial rotation are NOT accumulative *.All the
minute and second values do is keep axial rotation pinned to the noon
determination and kepp one 24 hour day ticking seamlessly into the next
24 hour day.Astronomers calibrate their clocks this way every noon,only
Harrisons could maintain that accuracy over long periods which they
made such good clocks for determining location via the 24 hour/360
equivalency.

*[ If you miss an noon observation one day you do not carry over the
value to the next minute and second correction]

The sidereal 3 min 56 sec are accumulative and have none of the
cyclical aspects which reflect the orbital motion of the Earth that the
Equation of Time has.What makes people freaks is that they attempt to
justify the sidereal value astronomically when it is simply a
convenient average of axial rotation over a 4 year calendrical year
plus the leap day.

I assure you the correct value for axial rotation through 360 degrees
is 24 hours exactly,not one fraction more or less.If you can't manage
that there is little point in attempting to see Newton's catastrophic
maneuver that basically wiped out astronomy and lead to the exotic
trash of the early 20th century.

Simple stuff for an astronomer but you guys certainly need help with
what the Equation of Time does and for that you need a sundialist.Leave
out where the Equation of Time comes from (as that has been
corrupted),only the association between 24 hour clocks and axial
rotation wrt the Sun is necessary as a matter of conceptual safe mode.

This is my final posting,truly.

wrote:

This final posting is for a true Englishman - John Harrison.His
timekeeper for longitude is based on axial rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees in 24 hours even though a hybrid version was
developed later based on stellar circumpolar navigation.The answer is
before you as you look at a clock on the wall and even though digital
clocks are common,people still love the way a clock keeps cyclical pace
with the day through the motion of the Earth.

It is true that scientists managed to bury the 24hour/360 deg
equivalency but most people feel uncomfortable with the alternative
value and with good reason,it is wrong.

The thing IT IS TRIVIAL TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT WRONG. Look at distant
object (a star, galaxy, quasar - whatever the most distant object you
can manage with your equipment) one night. Next night, see how long it
takes for that object to return to the same point in the sky. It takes
on sidereal day. Do this with many objects, just in case some are
moving significantly. It takes one sidereal day. It takes that long
because the Earth has completed one whole rotation about its axis
RELATIVE TO THOSE OBJECTS, so you're looking at the same part of the
sky (you chose a distant object to minimise parallax effects as the
Earth also moves around the sun, the sun moves around the galactic
centre etc. etc.). Looking at the same point means you have rotated
through a full circle, which is defined to be 360 degrees. Therefore
the Earth rotates 360 degrees in one sidereal day. QED.


Tim
--
This is not my helicopter.

wrote:


only the association between 24 hour clocks and axial
rotation wrt the Sun is necessary as a matter of conceptual safe mode.

Agreed - but not with axial motion wrt 360 degrees - for that you need
to subtract some 4 minutes from clock time, even if the clock was
Harrison's.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

Dear Geraldine

Explain sidereal clocks, their timekeeping, their purpose, telescope
setting circles and transit telescopes.

Chris.B

Tim Auton wrote:
wrote:

This final posting is for a true Englishman - John Harrison.His
timekeeper for longitude is based on axial rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees in 24 hours even though a hybrid version was
developed later based on stellar circumpolar navigation.The answer
is
before you as you look at a clock on the wall and even though
digital
clocks are common,people still love the way a clock keeps cyclical
pace
with the day through the motion of the Earth.

It is true that scientists managed to bury the 24hour/360 deg
equivalency but most people feel uncomfortable with the alternative
value and with good reason,it is wrong.

The thing IT IS TRIVIAL TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT WRONG. Look at
distant
object (a star, galaxy, quasar - whatever the most distant object you
can manage with your equipment) one night. Next night, see how long
it
takes for that object to return to the same point in the sky. It
takes
on sidereal day. Do this with many objects, just in case some are
moving significantly. It takes one sidereal day. It takes that long
because the Earth has completed one whole rotation about its axis
RELATIVE TO THOSE OBJECTS, so you're looking at the same part of the
sky (you chose a distant object to minimise parallax effects as the
Earth also moves around the sun, the sun moves around the galactic
centre etc. etc.). Looking at the same point means you have rotated
through a full circle, which is defined to be 360 degrees. Therefore
the Earth rotates 360 degrees in one sidereal day. QED.


Tim
--
This is not my helicopter.

Another useless **** who thinks the Earth is spinning on its axis and
doing nothing else.

You ****ing freaks continue to believe the astronomical justification
for the sidereal value and that makes you the dumbest people ever to
set foot on the planet.

You are so ****ing dull and conformist that children will have no
chance to enjoy the insights of Kepler and Copernicus while you ****
down their throats with warped space,time travel and all the other
exotic sci-fi trash,trash that is built on that single obvious error
by Flamsteed.

Dear Geraldine

Explain sidereal clocks, their timekeeping, their purpose, telescope
setting circles and transit telescopes.


Chris.B