Making things right

The long and winding tale as to how timekeeping was isolated from both time and the planetary cycles is now out in the open with the divergence which occurred when timekeeping became linked to the dynamically meaningless daily circumpolar motion of the stars -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afsb39_6QF0

The observed motion of the stars should be restricted to the orbital input of the Earth where the central Sun is used as a fixed reference and the first appearance of a star from behind the Sun's glare fixes the Earth's orbital position in space using the number of times the planet turns daily as a gauge. There are a number of conditions to this as latitudinal variations in the appearance of a star such as Sirius would be determined from the Equator as it combines both hemispheres.

Do people really want to promote a scheme where it was reasoned out that the Earth is into its next full rotation after 23 hours 56 minutes and there is one additional rotation than there are cycles based on the appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance of the stars ?.

We are not brute savages or thugs and this is crucially important for all research where the motions of the planet mesh with terrestrial sciences. The mistakes that were made are not ours as we simply inherited careless thinking so to match the huge technological advances there is no need to perpetuate ideas which simply are meaningless. The works of the great astronomers must not be destroyed to maintain a pretense for it takes quite an effort to investigate an astronomical topic and try to hold a narrative together without feeling the absolute necessity of being completely right and leaving things open for future modifications and advancement.

This is our era and our turn so unless people are intent of opting for intellectual suicide , they should stop and look at the external references and events which comprise human timekeeping, how the extra rotation known as the leap day keeps days fixed close to the orbital points of the Solstice/Equinox events and how the 24 hour system and Lat/Long systems developed as an extension of this.

It was always unfortunate that I should have to contend with an ideology that suggests one more rotation than there are 24 hour days or the false dichotomy which suggests two separate rotations to the Sun and the stars rather than advance productive views arising from the correct principles which link timekeeping to the cycles of the Earth. With a 'decision' looming next month on the false notion of a 'leap second' chained to planetary dynamics it may be that this forum is the only place where common sense prevails.

What people are doing, by their silence, is wrong and always will be given what is on offer to make things right. However dismaying it may be there is always hope that enough decent people out there care enough to stop and make the effort not to destroy some of the great works of humanity or the ability to make advancements in future.

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 2:36:02 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

Do people really want to promote a scheme where it was reasoned out that the
Earth is into its next full rotation after 23 hours 56 minutes and there is
one additional rotation than there are cycles based on the appearance of the
Sun followed by the appearance of the stars ?.

Yes. Why shouldn't they?

This is our era and our turn so unless people are intent of opting for
intellectual suicide , they should stop and look at the external references
and events which comprise human timekeeping, how the extra rotation known as
the leap day keeps days fixed close to the orbital points of the
Solstice/Equinox events and how the 24 hour system and Lat/Long systems
developed as an extension of this.

None of these things are being forgotten or neglected. We *agree* with you that
these things are important. We know what the basis of Standard Time time zones
is, how each hour of the day corresponds to 15 degrees of longitude. We know
our clocks use units of time based on the average 24 hour day, and have no
problems with that whatever.

It was always unfortunate that I should have to contend with an ideology that
suggests one more rotation than there are 24 hour days or the false dichotomy
which suggests two separate rotations to the Sun and the stars rather than
advance productive views arising from the correct principles which link
timekeeping to the cycles of the Earth. With a 'decision' looming next month
on the false notion of a 'leap second' chained to planetary dynamics it may
be that this forum is the only place where common sense prevails.

The notion of a "leap second" is not false.

You started your post with "The long and winding tale as to how timekeeping was
isolated from both time and the planetary cycles"... but it's only now, at the
end of replying to what you posted later that I can reply to that opening
remark.

Timekeeping today may well be isolated from "the planetary cycles", but it is
*not* isolated from *time*. That is, in fact, why we have such things as leap
seconds - timekeeping today is based on very precise techniques aimed at
getting us as closely and accurately in touch with time as possible.

Time is the pace of the succession of events. (_Pace_ St. Augustine ("What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."), I can at least admit that it took me a long time to come to this succinct definition of "time" for the purposes of discussions like this.)

I remember someone arguing to me that time isn't real, it's just a human
invention; past and future are real, and things happen, but time is just a
convention. Ah, but if that's the case, why is it I can wind two clocks, put
them into two rooms, and *close the doors* to those rooms, and open those rooms
an hour later, and find that both clocks have advanced two hours - instead of
one half an hour, and the other two hours?

What is it that pervaded the two rooms, keeping both clocks in synchronization?

That mysterious property of our Universe, however difficult it is for our
senses, our sciences, and our vocabulary to come to grips with it, *that* is
the thing we call time.

Not the movement of the Sun in the sky, or the Moon, or even the stars.

And so building frequency standards that use cesium vapor, or lasers, and so on
and so forth, so that we are generating a uniform beat caused by a physical
process that takes place with as little outside disturbance or interference as
possible, we are progressing, we are approaching, the goal of having clocks
that reflect the actual passage of time in as close to a pure form as possible.

The Earth's rotation gets disturbed seasonally by such things as the strength
of the trade winds - the UT1 - UTC correction. Over time, it is slowed by the
gravitational interaction between the Earth and Moon that causes the tides.

Even before atomic clocks, this could be seen by the discrepancy betwen the
ordinary time of day, and Ephemeris Time, measured against planetary motions,
and marked out in seconds whose length was taken in the 19th century.

Physics stands on a solid foundation - even if some people disapprove of
reductionism. You would replace that with the shifting sands of a false
Aristotelian belief that since the motion of the Sun is in the heavens, it must
be perfect and incorruptible. One that flies in the face of as simple and
obvious a fact as the Equation of Time.

Continue to be a voice crying in the wilderness if you will, but at least know
why you are alone.

John Savard

I have no issues with graffiti as this is an unmoderated Usenet forum and people are free to comment or not to comment regardless as to their station in life or with astronomy.

This thread deals strictly with planetary dynamics and timekeeping rather than Time itself. The type of people who once discussed temporal timekeeping and its relationship to the astronomical cycles have long since departed this planet leaving behind only those who try to squeeze time into a clock or watch.

" The Celestial Circuit may, no doubt, be thought of in terms of
quantity. It answers to measure- in two ways. First there is space;
the movement is commensurate with the area it passes through, and this
area is its extent. But this gives us, still, space only, not Time.
Secondly, the circuit, considered apart from distance traversed, has
the extent of its continuity, of its tendency not to stop but to
proceed indefinitely: but this is merely amplitude of Movement; search
it, tell its vastness, and, still, Time has no more appeared, no more
enters into the matter, than when one certifies a high pitch of heat;
all we have discovered is Motion in ceaseless succession, like water
flowing ceaselessly, motion and extent of motion.

Succession or repetition gives us Number- dyad, triad, etc.- and the
extent traversed is a matter of Magnitude; thus we have Quantity of
Movement- in the form of number, dyad, triad, decade, or in the form
of extent apprehended in what we may call the amount of the Movement:
but, the idea of Time we have not. That definite Quantity is merely
something occurring within Time, for, otherwise Time is not everywhere
but is something belonging to Movement which thus would be its
substratum or basic-stuff: once more, then, we would be making Time
identical with Movement; for the extent of Movement is not something
outside it but is simply its continuousness, and we need not halt upon
the difference between the momentary and the continuous, which is
simply one of manner and degree. The extended movement and its extent
are not Time; they are in Time. Those that explain Time as extent of
Movement must mean not the extent of the movement itself but something
which determines its extension, something with which the movement
keeps pace in its course. But what this something is, we are not told;
yet it is, clearly, Time, that in which all Movement proceeds. This is
what our discussion has aimed at from the first: "What, essentially,
is Time?" It comes to this: we ask "What is Time?" and we are
answered, "Time is the extension of Movement in Time!" Plotinus

People don't talk like this anymore and I say that with dismay. The reasoning which noted that daily motion of the stars through space in a celestial sphere framework took onto account the time and space intervals which prohibit associating time with motion . The Ra/Dec adherents of the late 17th century removed even the geocentric distinctions of the motion of the stars through space and dumped stars and space together as a single rotating stellar circumpolar motion.

Nobody has a right to destroy the work of so many people ranging from astronomers to technological innovators who created the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system as an extension of the calendar framework which brings timekeeping close to the daily and annual cycles to a close proximity. This is not a game nor am I isolated technically or historically in what I present, it is merely sowing together two narratives which up to now have not fitted together.

It is now customary for those who never encountered me to explain the surface rotation as a consequence of the orbital motion of the Earth. Of course these explanations lack any sort of the details I have provided from the beginning such as the transverse motion of the North and South poles across the fully illuminated face of the Earth and parallel with the Earth's orbital plane and motion.

The explanation for the seasons and the variations in length of the natural noon cycles rely solely on the two surface rotations actin in concert with the orbital rotation creating the observed variations as the Earth's orbital speed fluctuates while the constant component is daily rotation.

It can be a strange experience being lectured to by people who are only vaguely familiar with what I have done insofar as the tendency is to correct these people when they get into trouble such as assigning the Earth's dual day/night cycles to separate rotational causes which in turn is why they can't appreciate the number of surface rotations to orbital circuits as a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations per circuit.

It is a nuisance not being able to converse with people who have the ability to present a clear narrative rather than having to watch incompetent people try to imitate what has already been advanced as new perspectives. That is the only insult I recognize and suffer from