The transition from heliocentric to the galactic axis

George Dishman wrote;


http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm

The only way for the rotation to be 360 degrees in 24 hours
would be if you stopped the Earth in its orbit. ...
snip
I suppose I should be suitably insulted

No, you shouldn't. You are simply supposed to look at
the web page and either agree or tell me what is wrong
with it. Writing lots of paragraphs that do not address
our differences doesn't move the conversation forward
and is as much a waste of your time as mine.


Why do you insult me with graphics and subhuman explanations like
those,if there was the slightest trace of an astronomer in any of you
you would laugh them out of existence yet I am supposed to correct
this garbage as though it meant something.If you want to be treated
like children then so be it.

Axial tilt and the Equation of Time.

Axial tilt is a property of equatorial orientation to the Sun,a
sundial registers this as an increase or decrease in the lenght of the
shadow cast over the course of an annual elliptical rotation,it does
not affect the pace of the shadow across the sundial or subsequently
the variation from natural noon to natural noon.As the Equation of
Time applies from North polar axis to South polar axis along any given
line of longitude the variation in natural noon to natural noon does
not refer to the asymmetry between daylight and darkness but simply
the variation in the pace of the Sun from when the Earth faces the Sun
directly (noon) to when it repeats it.

Axial rotation and the variation within elliptical rotation.

The earth rotates on it's axis,it also rotates around the Sun,this is
what dictates the variation in natural noon to natural noon,because of
the unbounded silliness of you and your colleagues I have to repeat
that natural noon to natural noon is when the Earth faces the Sun
directly and the variation is caused by the cylical increase and
decrease in distance covered by the Earth within its annual elliptical
orbit,this variation is known as Kepler's second Law.

The wisdom of my astronomical heritage in contrast to the utter
stupidity of what passes for it today is to recognise that there is no
consistent external motion by which we register the constant rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours.What this means is that
the Equation of Time corrects the variation in natural noon to natural
noon to constant axial rotation where the longitudinal coordinates
rotate with the Earth and determine artificial noon registered by
clocks where every 15 degrees demarcates a hour difference totalling
24 hours and 360 degrees simultaneously.

There is no 1 degree difference over a cycle for the variation of
axial rotation against the variation in elliptical rotation from
natural noon to natural noon and the rotations of the Earth cannot
generate such an effect.If you believe that there is a constant 1
degree displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole',an archaic
notion that presents an obstacle to discerning the changing
orientation of the local stars to the remaining galaxies via a
rotational axis which we cannot discern directly.

The original question that generated this thread was how to recognise
galactic rotation,you simply want to remain in a sidereal world and
I'm sure you and your colleagues will be more than happy to remain in
your bubble universe with your 'celestial pole'.


Axial rotation and sidereal motion.

The parameter for sidereal motion combines axial and elliptical
rotations into a combined rotation as represented partially by your
graphics,you are obliged to demonstrate how the local stars act as a
rotational reference but it is impossible to achieve,you cannot
represent the variation of a noon to noon cycle because no such 1
degree difference can be accomplished,in short,the sidereal parameter
only works by creating to false parameters by adopting geocentric
observations and determining that the motion of the Sun against the
'celestial pole ' is real.There is no such thing as a celestial
pole,this is a property of the axial rotation of the Earth,the
sidereal parameter bypasses the next natural rotation which is the
Earth's orbital rotation and by these means there will be no further
discussion on modelling the wider cosmos off the galactic axis for in
your love of the sidereal parameter you are intent in retaining the
celestial pole.

Good for you George,how great you must feel ignoring the implications
of the Hubble discovery in 1923 which should have shut this
relativistic epoch down,now there is not a trace of any person capable
of understanding the two rotations of the Earth,how the Equation of
Time marked the difference of these two rotations,why axial tilt does
not affect the variation from natural noon to natural noon and this is
even before you describe celestial motion outside the solar system.




Since the errors you make regarding supernovae originate
with this orbital aspect, there is no point moving on
until you sort it out.


If you got an astronomy lesson from Flamsteed,Copernicus,Kepler and
especially Roemer you would have appreceated just how difficult their
task was,insofar as the changing orientation of the local stars to the
remaining galaxies is so fundamental as to be incontrovertible yet you
have'nt the foggiest idea how to treat it and go out of your way to
retain the sidereal 'celestial pole' says something about the
silliness of this generation of intellectual freaks ever to inhabit
the planet.


snip rest - again not relevant to the questions

George

I looked at your other posts and you have returned to relativistic
thumbsucking,I see you try to make sense of the cmbr but it is such a
waste of data in your hands,trying to make sense of cosmological
observations while ignoring the changing orientation of galaxies to
each other via local rotation looks for all the world like
incompetence,I probably would take the time to explain why but as
contemporary minds can't even handle the local rotation of the Earth
wrt the Sun I am at least thankful that while I am starved for
conversation on the issue of galactic rotation,the complex issues
would never breed such nonsense as the pathetic aether/relativity
arguments.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
George Dishman wrote;


http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm

The only way for the rotation to be 360 degrees in 24 hours
would be if you stopped the Earth in its orbit. ...
snip
I suppose I should be suitably insulted

No, you shouldn't. You are simply supposed to look at
the web page and either agree or tell me what is wrong
with it. Writing lots of paragraphs that do not address
our differences doesn't move the conversation forward
and is as much a waste of your time as mine.


Why do you insult me with graphics and subhuman explanations like
those,

Because I tried asking questions at a higher level but you
refused to even answer:

http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg

The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning
through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second):

[a] 24 hours exactly
[b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds
[c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year
[d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each
[e] something else (state your value) _____________

The chevrons show how often I tried treating you as an adult
but you still insist on behaving like a petulant child. Any
normal person would simply have answered when I first asked.

Now I have gone to the trouble of drawing some trivial sketches
that give you the opportunity to address the subject without
backing down from your position and it seems to have had
the desired effect. Later on you say:

If you believe that there is a constant 1
degree displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole' ...

No, it is purely a consequence of Copernicus. If the Earth
goes round the Sun in 365 days, it moves round the Sun by
360/365 degrees per day. That's all there is to it. This is
what has been at the bottom of all the disagreements we have
had recently and is why I went to the trouble of drawing the
web page.

The 'celestial pole' refers to the axis of rotation as you
said, not the orbital motion.

The wisdom of my astronomical heritage in contrast to the utter
stupidity of what passes for it today is to recognise ... the
constant rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours.

Since the Earth orbits around the Sun by 1 degree per day,
the web page shows why the time taken for a rotation of
360 degrees and the time from noon to noon cannot be the
same. The time from noon to noon is 24 hours as we agree,
so the time for a rotation of 360 degrees logically cannot
be 24h, it has to be less.

None of the rest of your post relates to this topic
but I will just point out a couple of things:

The earth rotates on it's axis,it also rotates around the Sun,this is
what dictates the variation in natural noon to natural noon,

That is why the third diagram on the web page says that
"after 24h (on average), it is again noon" when the Earth
has turned "to again face the Sun".

because of
the unbounded silliness of you and your colleagues I have to repeat
that natural noon to natural noon is when the Earth faces the Sun
directly

No, because you are so arrogant and don't bother to read
what anyone else writes, you continue to repeat things
that everyone else has already said. You quoted 20 lines
of my post and then wrote over 110 lines of new text of
which the first 7 quoted above are actually relevant.

George

(Jeff Root) wrote in message . com...
Gerald Kelleher wrote:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.If you
believe that the asymmetery between daylight and darkness is a factor
in the Equation of Time whereas the proper context is solely natural
noon to natural noon based on the rotation of the planet then it is
unlikely that you will appreceate the attempt to remove the sidereal
parameter without rejecting it,however convenient the notion of the '
celestial pole ' may be and on which the sidereal parameter depends,it
prohibits the introduction of axial rotation of the local stars around
the galactic axis as a factor in wider cosmological modelling,a
theorist will happily ignore it but a geometer/astronomer cannot.

There is very little satisfaction to be had from Mr Schlyter's
retraction that axial tilt is a component of the Equation of Time,be
that as it may,at least it serves the purpose in drawing attension to
how astronomers in Newton's era worked with celestial observation in
the absense of accurate clocks prior to the adoption of the sidereal
parameter.You probably will have noticed that the astronomical
correction expressed as the difference between absolute and relative
time never gets discussed here,partially because contemporary
interests are not served by bringing up this important topic and
partially because they wish to set Newton and by association
astronomers in his era as stool pidgeons,set them up and then tear
them down.Perhaps you should ask Mr Dishman what Newton meant by the
difference between absolute time and relative time and what the
astronomical correction is and perhaps why 100 years ago a talentless
bunch of mathematicians basically wrecked astronomy wholesale by going
along with a kid who knew little of the relationship and rich heritage
of clocks,geometry and astronomy and he done it all on the back of the
Equation of Time as phrased by Newton.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar 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. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the true,
or equable, progress of absolute time is liable to no change."
Principia



However ambiguous you may find Newton's definition it is clear that he
was expressing the Equation of Time and geometric/celestial alignments
in terms of what a 'day' is.The job of an astronomer is to correct the
corruption imposed on Newton's definitions by the aether/relativistic
mindset and I will continue refining the material in an effort to
restore some dignity to the once noble tradition of astronomy,its
heritage and its history and simultaneously bring in new material that
is beyond the intuitive capabilities of men who take pride in their
undisciplined "free creations of the mind" theories.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
George Dishman wrote;


http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm

The only way for the rotation to be 360 degrees in 24 hours
would be if you stopped the Earth in its orbit. ...
snip
I suppose I should be suitably insulted

No, you shouldn't. You are simply supposed to look at
the web page and either agree or tell me what is wrong
with it. Writing lots of paragraphs that do not address
our differences doesn't move the conversation forward
and is as much a waste of your time as mine.


Why do you insult me with graphics and subhuman explanations like
those,

Because I tried asking questions at a higher level but you
refused to even answer:

http://www.starsforfun.com/gaot01a.jpg

The stars appear to rotate about the celestial pole, turning
through 360 degrees in (to the nearest second):

[a] 24 hours exactly
[b] 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds
[c] 24 hours on average but varying during the year
[d] 365.2422 days of 86400 seconds each
[e] something else (state your value) _____________

The chevrons show how often I tried treating you as an adult
but you still insist on behaving like a petulant child. Any
normal person would simply have answered when I first asked.

Now I have gone to the trouble of drawing some trivial sketches
that give you the opportunity to address the subject without
backing down from your position and it seems to have had
the desired effect. Later on you say:

If you believe that there is a constant 1
degree displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole' ...

No, it is purely a consequence of Copernicus. If the Earth
goes round the Sun in 365 days, it moves round the Sun by
360/365 degrees per day. That's all there is to it. This is
what has been at the bottom of all the disagreements we have
had recently and is why I went to the trouble of drawing the
web page.

The 'celestial pole' refers to the axis of rotation as you
said, not the orbital motion.


I'm sure even Jeff would burst out laughing when he sees how the
author of spacetime tethers the orbits of the primary planets to
sidereal motion or in other words;the geocentric celestial pole and
then asks his readers to ignore sidereal motion in order to isolate
the motion of Mercury,too funny !,he simply made up astronomy as he
went along and I am sure if he said the moon was made of cheese,today
you would be discussing whether it was swiss or provalone.

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to
Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

Good grief !!!!!.


The wisdom of my astronomical heritage in contrast to the utter
stupidity of what passes for it today is to recognise ... the
constant rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours.

Since the Earth orbits around the Sun by 1 degree per day,
the web page shows why the time taken for a rotation of
360 degrees and the time from noon to noon cannot be the
same. The time from noon to noon is 24 hours as we agree,

What is this insincere nonsense ?,maybe I should say that we both
agree that there is a variation in natural noon to natural noon (which
there is !) due to the dual rotations of the Earth.You are lapsing
back into insincerity and against that even I can't save the
correspondence,perhaps because I see so much insincerity imposed on
the truly great astronomers that you are only doing what is in your
nature,great politics but poor astronomy.


so the time for a rotation of 360 degrees logically cannot
be 24h, it has to be less.

None of the rest of your post relates to this topic
but I will just point out a couple of things:

The earth rotates on it's axis,it also rotates around the Sun,this is
what dictates the variation in natural noon to natural noon,

That is why the third diagram on the web page says that
"after 24h (on average), it is again noon" when the Earth
has turned "to again face the Sun".


What is this average nonsense,the precision of axial longitude
coordinates can be expressed by clocks,they are fixed geometrically to
the planet and you can convert location coordinates into clock
coordinates and visa versa.You cannot have your childish 4th dimension
derived from clocks because clocks are rulers of physical distance and
measure this distance in a specific way away from the polar axis.

There are too many ditherers around clocks and from my experience it
is rare to find an individual who sees the problems of clocks,geometry
and astronomy,even large institutions and their 'experts' are
oblivious to basic principles and should you imagine that I am
isolated in my views you are very much mistaken.

http://www.compulink.co.uk/~dominict...navigation.htm



because of
the unbounded silliness of you and your colleagues I have to repeat
that natural noon to natural noon is when the Earth faces the Sun
directly

No, because you are so arrogant and don't bother to read
what anyone else writes, you continue to repeat things
that everyone else has already said. You quoted 20 lines
of my post and then wrote over 110 lines of new text of
which the first 7 quoted above are actually relevant.

George

Keep your celestial pole and your sidereal motion,frankly it is far
worse than those who opposed the introduction of the heliocentric
system.I can only appeal to the obvious true motion of the local stars
to the remaining galaxies for so long and how we perceived local Milky
Way rotation as an extension of the first two rotations of the
Earth.Your relativistic cosmological model is a bubble universe
designed around the 'celestial pole' and it is no wonder you resort to
'balloon' analogies to describe the universe,you are not capable of
either feeling remorse for the destruction of astronomy or feeling
embarrased that theorists foist the absurd 'every point is the valid
center of the cosmos' as though it were a human achievement.I am
embarrased for this epoch of humanity in contrast to the admiration
for those great insights we inherited from the past by people who knew
how to interpret celestial observation correctly.

Gerald Kelleher replied to Jeff Root:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.

The page that the graph is on says the graph shows the effects
of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of Earth's orbit.

If the graph showed only the effect due to the ellipticity of
Earth's orbit, it would have only one peak and one valley.

This page has a graph which shows the two components of the
equation of time:

http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Summat...Summation.html

The component due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by almost
+/- 8 minutes over the course of a year, while the component
due to the tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the Sun causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by about
+/- 10 minutes over the course of half a year. The result of
combining them is two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys in
the equation of time, as shown in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

How do you explain the fact that it has two unequal peaks and
two unequal valleys?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...

If you believe that there is a constant 1 degree
displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole' ...

No, it is purely a consequence of Copernicus. If the Earth
goes round the Sun in 365 days, it moves round the Sun by
360/365 degrees per day. That's all there is to it. This is
what has been at the bottom of all the disagreements we have
had recently and is why I went to the trouble of drawing the
web page.

Gerald, I carefully read all the rest of your post and
there isn't a single word that addresses the actual
topic. Please respond to what I wrote.

George

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm

(Jeff Root) wrote in message . com...
Gerald Kelleher replied to Jeff Root:

If anything good comes from this thread,it will probably be
recognising that the major institutions make the fundamental
error of incorporating axial tilt or equatorial orientation as
a factor in the Equation of Time

In that case, show us the error in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

And what the correct graph would be.

The graph is fine,axial tilt as a component factor is not.

The page that the graph is on says the graph shows the effects
of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of Earth's orbit.


One particular point among many brought up in the discussion over the
last number of weeks is that the major institutions inserted an axial
orientation component into the Equation of Time and this is a major
error.I quite understand why this error was introduced but as it is an
error which affects all ahead of it,it is necessary to go through the
particulars slowly and impartially.

How important is all this ?,as location coordinates translate into
clock readings the only permissible clock comparisons and the
difference between readings are those which have existed for
centuries,clocks are rulers of physical distance in a specific way
away from the axis of rotation of the planet therefore it is no longer
possible to seperate clocks and rulers which in turn dispenses with
concepts based on rulers measuring one thing and clocks measuring
another.



If the graph showed only the effect due to the ellipticity of
Earth's orbit, it would have only one peak and one valley.


It is possible to draw attention to the most obvious error of the
axial tilt component in the Equation of Time in any website you may
care to present regardless of the pedigree of the institution.For
example -

"This chart shows the position of the true sun in the sky throughout
the year. The y–axis on the chart represents the declination of the
sun in the sky for one year, going from –23.45° in the winter to
+23.45° in the summer. The x–axis represents the difference in time
from what your watch reads to the actual position of the sun in the
sky"

http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Summat...Summation.html



As the Earth rotates to face the Sun directly (noon) along any given
line of longitude from the North polar axis to the South polar axis it
should strike you as odd that all websites use the hemispherical terms
of winter and summer which are reversed to each other in both
hemispheres,if it is summer in America it is winter in Australia.

As always it is most unfortunate that I have to explain where the
error of axial tilt as a component of the Equation of Time is
generated,you can safely skip it as I do not expect that you will
recognise where the winter/summer component makes the whole thing go
awry insofar as the Equation of Time is an equation which ignores the
asymmetry between daylight and darkness due to axial tilt and refers
solely to the variation in the observed pace of the Sun from natural
noon to natural noon by means of the dual rotations of the Earth over
the course of an annual orbit.Axial tilt will shorten and lenghten the
shadow cast on a sundial over the course of an annual orbit but it
does not affect the pace of the shadow across the sundial,again the
pace is common from pole to pole so differences between winter and
summer does not apply and subsequently it is not a factor in the
Equation of Time.

The basis of the Equation of time refers only to the motion of the
Earth wrt the Sun,unlike the sidereal parameter it does not create an
artificial 'celestial pole' which after all is a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth generating circumpolar motion.The sidereal
parameter combines the axial and elliptical rotation and determines a
planetary constant motion of 23 hrs 56 min approx but left as it
stands this creates a conflict with the clock system defined
geometrically by the longitudinal system designed around 24 hrs per
360 degrees.The inequality from natural noon to natural noon occurs
from pole to pole as the Earth rotates through an axial cycle (when it
faces the Sun directly at one location to when it repeats it),it does
not matter how much you tilt the Earth,as rotation is constant the
Equation of Time and the axial cycle do not depend on axial
orientation no more than any spinning object and an outside reference
point does.As an analogy,tilt a constantly spinning carousel and it
does not affect the observed appearance of an outside stationary
reference point from one cycle to the next,if this is beyond you I
suggest that you stay clear of the next part.

The astronomers in Newton's era and Newton himself noted that there is
no constant external motion by which you can guage 24 hrs per 360
degrees.As clocks are fixed to longitude coordinates which rotate with
the planet the Equation of Time denotes the variation against these
rotational axial coordinates,in other words the variation from
natural noon to natural noon never requires an external reference for
axial rotation because the reference is built into the geometry of the
planet,the only thing necessary was the natural cyclical variation in
distance through elliptical rotation against axial rotation.

For whatever reasons,it is a poor intellectual judgement to associate
daylight/darkness asymmetry to the Equation of Time merely from the
fact that it can't be done,is counterproductive,really bad mechanics
by attributing influence to equatorial orientation along with axial
rotation and what have you.












This page has a graph which shows the two components of the
equation of time:

http://www.analemma.com/Pages/Summat...Summation.html




Natural noon to natural noon is when the Earth rotates axially to face
the Sun directly (noon),this axial rotation does not correspond to any
external reference of a constant 24 hrs per 360 degrees yet
astronomers and navigators corrected the appearance of natural noon to
their axial coordinates of 360 degrees in 24 hours,astronomers for
their purpose and navigators for theirs but the common usuage is the
Equation of Time.As navigators were required to know what distance
they were removed from the axis of the Earth (Latitude) so as to know
what distance they needed to apply to seconds,minutes and hours ( 1
degree/4 minutes equals 69 miles at the equator and 0 at the poles)
and then make the comparison with an onboard clock for determination
of their location on the planet,the seperate computation for latitude
relied on their tilt off the polar axis so scrambling this with
equatorial orientation and then attributing significance to equatorial
tilt as a component of the Equation of Time is almost bewidering as it
is ignorant (no offense intended).




http://www.lewis-clark.org/mapterrincog/nav_mtiG14.htm

http://www.starpathdemos.com/bowditch/table7.htm



The component due to the ellipticity of Earth's orbit causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by almost
+/- 8 minutes over the course of a year, while the component
due to the tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the Sun causes
the time that the Sun crosses the meridian to vary by about
+/- 10 minutes over the course of half a year. The result of
combining them is two unequal peaks and two unequal valleys in
the equation of time, as shown in the graph you linked to:

http://sundials.org/faq/eotgraph.gif

How do you explain the fact that it has two unequal peaks and
two unequal valleys?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

With all due respect but all these websites talk of summer and winter
as a component in the Equation of Time whereas the original framework
for the astronomical correction was never conditioned by hemispherical
differences.The Equation itself allows for the natural variation from
noon to noon as a consequence of the dual rotations of the Earth but
attributes significance to the axial coordinates of longitude and
clocks as 24 hours per 360 degrees as a constant.If for some reason
you wish to retain daylight/darkness asymmetery as a component of the
Equation of Time for the purpose of retaining the limited sidereal
parameter,you are effectively killing off the chance of removing the
antiquated 'celestial pole' for the purpose of wider cosmological
modelling off the galactic axis or what amounts to the same thing,the
changing orientation of the local stars to the remaining galaxies.





.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...

If you believe that there is a constant 1 degree
displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole' ...

No, it is purely a consequence of Copernicus. If the Earth
goes round the Sun in 365 days, it moves round the Sun by
360/365 degrees per day. That's all there is to it. This is
what has been at the bottom of all the disagreements we have
had recently and is why I went to the trouble of drawing the
web page.

Gerald, I carefully read all the rest of your post and
there isn't a single word that addresses the actual
topic. Please respond to what I wrote.

George

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm

Take a look at what is going around us George,tell me what astronomy
you see in this forum.Would you care to explain to Henri how axial
tilt is a factor in the determination of finite light distance seeing
that Ole Roemer applied the Equation of Time to his observance of the
orbit of Io,spare me your answer for if the big institutions are going
along with axial tilt as a factor, the Equation of Time suffers death
by bad consensus just as the Equation of Light has.

http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/Online.../chapter3.html


Your graphics represent the creation of a celestial pole through which
you can retain sidereal motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars',it
is your priviledge to acknowledge circumpolar motion without
recognising the changing orientation of the local stars to the
remaining galaxies but like those before you centuries ago who could
not recognise the reasoning behind heliocentricity I must leave you
with your antequated notions.

There are only two rotations involved,count them,just two rotations
involved in the Equation of Time and you lot can't even handle
those,insofar as sci.research forums are even worse than the
unmoderated forums the dismal prospect is that the scientific
discipline will never recover and as much as it must make you content
to continue on with circular aether/relativity arguments I would take
pride in isolation rather than the consensual mediocrity you adhere
to,the worse condition a human being can live by.

"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...

If you believe that there is a constant 1 degree
displacement (which is your priviledge) I can only assume that
it is for the benefit of retaining a 'celestial pole' ...

No, it is purely a consequence of Copernicus. If the Earth
goes round the Sun in 365 days, it moves round the Sun by
360/365 degrees per day. That's all there is to it. This is
what has been at the bottom of all the disagreements we have
had recently and is why I went to the trouble of drawing the
web page.

Gerald, I carefully read all the rest of your post and
there isn't a single word that addresses the actual
topic. Please respond to what I wrote.

George

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm



Your graphics represent the creation of a celestial pole ..

Rubbish, you are hallucinating. The diagram is stripped to
the basics and shows _only_ the Earth moving round the Sun,
just pure Copernicus, nothing more.

There are only two rotations involved,count them,just two rotations ..

Correct and the diagrams show nothing but those two. Now
try to address the point instead of inventing non-existent
distractions: if the Earth completes one orbit around the
Sun in a little more than 365 days, it moves round the Sun
a little less than one degree per day, true or false?

George