The only possible references for timekeeping

This is not rocket science and easily accessible to anyone who values their intelligence and in contrast to people who don't yet these same people make nuisances of themselves when timekeeping and the planetary cycles are brought front and center. There are many,many major topics implicit in the correct principles so get this right before any more damage is done.

The Sun crossing the observer's meridian corresponds to one rotation of the planet whereas academics have the Earth turn once more often that each of these astronomical events.

The more important issue with timekeeping is the role the apparent motion of the stars play in constructing the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system.. There is no circumpolar motion or star trails around Polaris as a means to determine constant rotation, there is only the orbital inputs which cause the stars to disappear behind the central Sun and its glare for extended periods -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A


No point in asking if everyone has this principle straight knowing the mentality of most here however it is basic enough for even the more casually curious mind. The apparent motion of the Sun from day to day determines the rotation of the Earth, the annual apparent motion of the stars in sequence behind the Sun determines the Earth's orbital motion and position in space.

Using the daily cycle as a gauge, it was discovered many centuries ago that a star skips an appearance by one day after its first appearance 4 years and 1460 days earlier and an additional day was required to keep the annual cycle of 365 days pinned to the seasonal points of the Solstices and Equinoxes. This translates, in dynamical terms, to a close approximation of 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 rotation to a single orbital circuit.

The next adjustment was meant to be precession as the framework of the original astronomers did not use the apparent annual motion of the stars behind the Sun but rather the Sun's motion through the Zodiac.

Even if the outcome of the 'vote' next month is certain to fulfill the objectives already in place by assigning a non cyclical assertion conjured out of thin air, I am obliged to maintain the actual astronomical principles on which timekeeping is founded and more importantly, preventing timekeeping from disrupting the actual perspectives on the planet's motions and the perspectives used.

Do you even own a wris****ch?

Obviously the sundial, or its equivalent, is not the "only possible" reference
for timekeeping. If I want to find out, for example, how long it takes a gram of
salt to dissolve in water, I don't want any complications due to the Equation of
Time. So I would want to measure that time using a mechanical clock that always
has the same behavior, rather than the Sun's position, which only produces an
*average* 24 hour day.

You may feel that it is somehow inappropriate to give priority to the
mechanistic needs of scientists and engineers over the natural, organic
connection between the day and the apparent path of the Sun in the sky. But
given our society's dependence on so many different kinds of machine, you will
have a hard time making a persuasive case.

John Savard

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Do you even own a wris****ch?

Obviously the sundial, or its equivalent, is not the "only
possible" reference
for timekeeping. If I want to find out, for example, how long it
takes a gram of
salt to dissolve in water, I don't want any complications due to
the Equation of Time.

How much can the Equation of Time change while one gram of salt
dissolves inte water?

So I would want to measure that time using a mechanical clock that
always
has the same behavior,

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

rather than the Sun's position, which only produces an
*average* 24 hour day.


You may feel that it is somehow inappropriate to give priority to
the
mechanistic needs of scientists and engineers over the natural,
organic
connection between the day and the apparent path of the Sun in the
sky. But
given our society's dependence on so many different kinds of
machine, you will
have a hard time making a persuasive case.


John Savard

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:04:43 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

How much can the Equation of Time change while one gram of salt
dissolves inte water?

So I would want to measure that time using a mechanical clock that
always
has the same behavior,

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

Depends on what you mean by a "mechanical" clock, and how you define
"standard". You could argue that an atomic clock is a type of
mechanical clock. Whether the actual standard is a physical phenomenon
or the instrument that measures it might just be seen as semantics.

That said, when the EoT is changing at its fastest, it varies by about
20 seconds per day. That's 231 microseconds per second. So the
dissolution time of a grain of salt could be in error by a few
milliseconds if you chose to use the Earth's rotation as a time
standard. Certainly, there are truly mechanical clocks (that is, gears
and springs) capable of such resolution.

Timekeeping relies on two astronomical events corresponding to one day and one rotation.

The appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance of the stars each day and every day corresponds to a single rotation -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9jdS1wI7kQ

The next astronomical event is the appearance of Sirius after an extended period lost behind the glare of the central Sun, this star being the brightest to inhabitants on Earth apart from our own parent star -

http://cx.aos.ask.com/question/aq/14...6c76a2f67b.jpg

This star is the orbital marker for the Earth's position in space regardless of the difference in latitude when the star firsts appears. It will skip an appearance by one day after 4 circuits of 365 days hence the founding principle of planetary dynamics that there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days or 365 1/4 days and 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

The apparent annual motion of the stars in tandem with the apparent motion of the Sun each day obliterates the notion which tried to create the notion that the Earth rotates separately to the stars and the Sun.

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


This is for people who wish to live with their own experiences of the day and annual cycles as their astronomical ancestors did leaving the pretentious among contemporaries to die without knowing the magnificence of the celestial arena nor how our astronomical ancestors created the timekeeping system out of distinct astronomical events that still can be seen .

You have these guys trying to talk about the Equation of Time when the subject is focused on the references for the number of times the planet turns for the equivalent time it takes to make a circuit of the Sun. If people can't enjoy the procedure then they haven't understood it and it is that simple.

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:09:37 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:04:43 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

How much can the Equation of Time change while one gram of salt
dissolves inte water?

So I would want to measure that time using a mechanical clock that
always
has the same behavior,

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

Depends on what you mean by a "mechanical" clock, and how you define
"standard". You could argue that an atomic clock is a type of
mechanical clock. Whether the actual standard is a physical phenomenon
or the instrument that measures it might just be seen as semantics.

That said, when the EoT is changing at its fastest, it varies by about
20 seconds per day. That's 231 microseconds per second. So the
dissolution time of a grain of salt could be in error by a few
milliseconds if you chose to use the Earth's rotation as a time
standard. Certainly, there are truly mechanical clocks (that is, gears
and springs) capable of such resolution.

You clowns had a great time convincing the world that you were all geniuses based on the Equation of Time but all it did was demonstrate that none of you understood your own empiricist system including the founder who wasn't defining time but rather dithering around with timekeeping -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton

No doubt the voodoo merchants imagine they are secure in the knowledge that few inquire about the timekeeping facility and nobody to my knowledge has actually understood the dual surface rotations of the Earth to the central Sun which makes up the differences from one noon cycle to the next.

I do not consider myself a master of all I survey however I have resolved why those variations occur using the same dynamics which create the polar day/night cycle in tandem with the daily day/night cycle or two surface rotations going on simultaneously.

On 08/10/2015 18:09, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:04:43 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

How much can the Equation of Time change while one gram of salt
dissolves inte water?

So I would want to measure that time using a mechanical clock that
always
has the same behavior,

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

They were for a while until we had something better.

Depends on what you mean by a "mechanical" clock, and how you define
"standard". You could argue that an atomic clock is a type of
mechanical clock. Whether the actual standard is a physical phenomenon
or the instrument that measures it might just be seen as semantics.

The Shortt-Synchronome regulator clock was amazing for its day. One was
tested against an atomic clock in 1984 and found to be good to within
200us/day. Pretty good for a pure mechanical pendulum device.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt-Synchronome_clock

They were pretty much the last truly all mechanical precision clocks
made at incredible expense prior to ovened quartz crystals and then
later atomic clocks taking over.

That said, when the EoT is changing at its fastest, it varies by about
20 seconds per day. That's 231 microseconds per second. So the
dissolution time of a grain of salt could be in error by a few
milliseconds if you chose to use the Earth's rotation as a time
standard. Certainly, there are truly mechanical clocks (that is, gears
and springs) capable of such resolution.

Sunrise to sunrise and sunset to sunset varies a lot more day by day if
you are not close to the equator.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/10/2015 18:09, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

They were for a while until we had something better.

I was using "mechanical clock" in a broad sense, including atomic clocks, so in
that sense, they still are.

In the narrow sense, though, while accurate pendulum clocks were used for
serious timekeeping, when this was the case, the Earth's rotation was used as
the primary standard of time - through transit circles that looked to see when
stars, not the Sun, crossed the local meridian.

I didn't mention _that_ once more because I know it's the issue that gives poor
Oriel the fits, but now you've forced my hand.

John Savard

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:09:34 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:04:43 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

How much can the Equation of Time change while one gram of salt
dissolves inte water?

So I would want to measure that time using a mechanical clock
that
always
has the same behavior,

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

Depends on what you mean by a "mechanical" clock, and how you define
"standard". You could argue that an atomic clock is a type of
mechanical clock. Whether the actual standard is a physical
phenomenon
or the instrument that measures it might just be seen as semantics.

That said, when the EoT is changing at its fastest, it varies by
about
20 seconds per day. That's 231 microseconds per second. So the
dissolution time of a grain of salt could be in error by a few
milliseconds if you chose to use the Earth's rotation as a time
standard. Certainly, there are truly mechanical clocks (that is,
gears
and springs) capable of such resolution.

So the major problem in using true solar time to measure how long it
takes small amounts of salt to dissolves inte water would be to fina
a sundial where you could read the time to an accuracy of a fraction
of a second.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-6, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 08/10/2015 18:09, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason
why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.

They were for a while until we had something better.

I was using "mechanical clock" in a broad sense, including atomic
clocks, so in
that sense, they still are.

In such a broad sense sundials are mechanical clocks too, since they
work through celestial mechanics.


In the narrow sense, though, while accurate pendulum clocks were
used for
serious timekeeping, when this was the case, the Earth's rotation
was used as
the primary standard of time - through transit circles that looked
to see when
stars, not the Sun, crossed the local meridian.

I didn't mention _that_ once more because I know it's the issue
that gives poor
Oriel the fits, but now you've forced my hand.

John Savard