|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Leap second proposal
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Leap second proposal
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Oiel - 3rd attempt
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The leap day | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | August 21st 15 09:54 PM |
To Leap or Not to Leap: Scientists debate a timely issue | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | April 24th 06 08:42 AM |
LEAP YEAR, LEAP SECOND 31.12.2005, CALENDAR.=====.. | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | December 29th 05 03:14 AM |
Leap Seconds | Eric Chomko | Policy | 2 | July 15th 04 11:19 PM |
Concerning the leap day | Oriel36 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 29th 04 09:31 PM |