|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
Newton,while formattting his time,space and motions distinctions in
line with the Equation of Time method created an error by shifting to the sidereal format.However convenient it may have been for his gravitational agenda to make the shift,it creates an astronomical picture of such a limited value it is almost worthless.Anyone who calls himself an astronomer can judge correctly that Newton used Flamsteed's isochronos value and changed to that perspective as it is the only means to determine that geocentric coordinates are equivalent to heliocentric coordinates. "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 " http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time "PHÆNOMENON IV. That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them; as we may see from the following table." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm An astronomer of distinction would recognise why one picture is incompatible with the other from those two excerpts taken from the Principia.Fundamentally,the Equation of Time description of the first excerpt refers to the isolating of the axial rotation of the Earth from its variable orbital motion while the sidereal format treats the motions of the Earth as a single homogenised movement and has no astronomical justification whatsoever. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm The Actual Main Component of the Equation of Time There are two major consequences in recognising the changing orientation of the daylight/darkness line as a property of the Earth's orbital motion. http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg The daylight/darkness line is always tangential to the Sun/Earth line as indicated by the arrows in the above graphic and represents the distinction between the Earth's orbital shadow and the change in that shadow in accordance with Kepler's second law against the distant stars. The changing reference of the daylight/darkness line to the distant stars is useful for grafting in the axial rotation of the Earth insofar as an observer axially rotates out of the orbital shadow (Dawn),the direction of orbital motion can be gauged against the daylight/darkness line.At the perihelion and aphelion,the orbital direction of the Earth lies on the daylight/line (as seen in the graphic)- http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg Depending on where the Earth in in its orbital motion,at other times,it will exist closer to dawn darkness and at other time closer to dawn daylight. The changing orientation of the daylight/darkness line in accordance with Kepler's second law and the constant axial rotation of the Earth passing through that line and on to the alignment with the Sun/Earth line is what generates the natural unequal day. The Equation of Time, with its positive and negative minute and second values which are added and subtracted to the noon determination to facilitate the isolation of the axial rotation of the Earth to the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency over the course of an annual orbital cycle exists as a product between constant axial rotation and the shift in the daylight/darkness line. There never was an axial tilt component in the Equation of Time and for about 400 years the changing orientation of the daylight/darkness line as a property of the Earth's orbital orientation to the Sun (the line is 90 degrees perpendicular to the Sun Earth line) has been ignored. Anyone who discerns the general direction of the Earth's orbital motion at dawn as the Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow will experience something new ,the rediscovery of astronomy and the works of Copernicus and especially Kepler. http://www.serve.com/wizjd/pics/hale05_m.jpg If there is a problem recognising the changing orientation of the daylight/darkness line in accordance with Kepler's second law,this simplified graphic may help along with the main graphic demonstrating how the line changes over an annual orbit. http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/scidisc...00779_w150.gif http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
Reed Riddle wrote in message ...
In article , (Oriel36) wrote: snip a lot of confusing statements Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year? If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in, say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why they are different. The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line. http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg Graft that image and the tangential relationship between the Sun/Earth line and the daylight/darkness line into the following graphic where the arrows constitute the orientation of the daylight/darkness line to the distant stars in accordance with Kepler's second law.While providing a convenient use of stellar markers which do not follow the axial coordinates of longitude and subsequently the stellar circumpolar framework,it also provides the difference in arc degrees to the Sun/Earth line for each axial rotation both as a seperate motion and a seperate orientation. http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg By incorporating the constant axial rotation of the Earth as a seperate motion into the above graphic,the alignment of longitudinal coordinates directly with the Sun/Earth line (natural noon) determines the variation in the total lenght of a day from one complete axial rotation to the next. The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next. If the Equation of Time adjustment is 16 minutes for one axial rotation,this represents a shift in the daylight/darkness orientation of 4 arc degrees maintained by the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency throughout the annual orbital cycle.Difficult as this is,it is the only means to seperate constant axial rotation from its variable orbital motion by using a celestial reference. Flamsteed basically homogenised axial and orbital motion into a single sidereal motion and determined axial rotation as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec to the stellar circumpolar framework.This would not prove that the Earth's axial rotation is constant however convenient it would have been for Flamsteed to reduce celestial coordinates to terrestial coordinates for solving the longitude problem. Daylight/darkness asymmetry in terms of Montreal and Buenos Aires are conditioned by axial tilt, contemporary descriptions of the Equation of Time falsely attribute axial tilt as a component resulting in hemispherical descriptions of summer/winter and daylight/darkness asymmetry and sunrise/sunset.If you can live with planetary hemispherical descriptions then be my guest. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html If that's not what you're saying, you might want to try again. I do asteroseismology, which involves converting from Earth time to Sidereal time to other, more accurate times, and I sure didn't get what you were driving at. Reed Unfortunately you snipped the relevant passages where Newton was possibly misled by Flamsteed in determining that heliocentric coordinates are equivalent to geocentric coordinates. "PHÆNOMENON IV. That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them; as we may see from the following table." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm The premise and proof of Flamsteed's isochronical determination for the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees is incorrect.You cannot prove the constant axial rotation of the Earth that way,for one thing the sidereal format determines a constant .986 degree orbital displacement in direct conflict with Kepler's second law and attributes a constant axial rotation to the Sun/Earth line every 24 hours. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm -- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do." Angela Chase, "My so-called life" Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply..... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
In message , Oriel36
writes Reed Riddle wrote in message ... In article , (Oriel36) wrote: snip a lot of confusing statements Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year? If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in, say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why they are different. The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line. http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg What on Earth do you mean by that, and what does an Apollo picture of the Earth have to do with it? The Earth's axis is inclined to the plane of its orbit. The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next. That's the most garbled explanation I've ever seen. The equation of time is due to the Earth's orbit not being a circle, so it moves faster when it's closest to the Sun. The Sun therefore appears to move faster. There's also the ecliptic tilt. But civil time depends on a "mean sun", assumed to move at constant speed, because both true solar time and sidereal time would be inconvenient. -- mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote: Reed Riddle wrote in message ... In article , (Oriel36) wrote: snip a lot of confusing statements snip a lot more stuff I've always believed that your idea is not a good one if you can't explain the basics in a short paragraph. I'm pretty sure that I have a handle on what you're trying to say, but it's so obfuscated that it's not clear at all. You haven't even stated clearly what problem you see or are trying to solve! So, try to make a clear point this time. No more than a few sentences. State the problem clearly. Do that, and I can help you figure out the details more clearly. Reed -- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do." Angela Chase, "My so-called life" Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply..... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36 writes Reed Riddle wrote in message ... In article , (Oriel36) wrote: snip a lot of confusing statements Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year? If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in, say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why they are different. The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line. http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg What on Earth do you mean by that, and what does an Apollo picture of the Earth have to do with it? The Earth's axis is inclined to the plane of its orbit. I would be in danger of introducing redundancy if I recycled the procedure again and the moderator has been gracious enough in permitting a second attempt at explanation of isolating orbital orientation first and then incorporating axial rotation within the framework. Simply stated,axial tilt or equatorial orientation to the Sun is not a component of the Equation of Time.Unfortunately the Equation of Time is currently associated with daylight and darkness asymmetry within the astronomical day whereas its proper association is the total lenght of a day determined by axial rotation to the Sun. http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next. That's the most garbled explanation I've ever seen. The equation of time is due to the Earth's orbit not being a circle, so it moves faster when it's closest to the Sun. The Sun therefore appears to move faster. There's also the ecliptic tilt. But civil time depends on a "mean sun", assumed to move at constant speed, because both true solar time and sidereal time would be inconvenient. I have restricted descriptions of the Equation of Time to the heliocentric motions of the Earth and the difference between constant axial and variable orbital motion. Flamsteed's premise and proof of constant axial rotation by means of stellar circumpolar motion is incorrect for he is piggybacking on the already existing assumption that axial rotation is constant via the 24 hour/360 degree longitudinal equivalency via the Equation of Time. "Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:- .... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical... " http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ongitude2.html By applying the Equation of Time,Flamsteed is basically equalising the variations in orbital motion which generate the natural unequal day,not just the elliptical path but the manner in which the Earth moves through that path in accordance with Kepler's second law.The following animation explaining Kepler's second law should be useful here. http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html Mathematically,Flamsteed worked it this way - 360 degrees = 24 hours 1 degree = 4 min ..986 degree = 3 min 56 sec 24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm The determination of constant axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec comes at the cost of the loss of astronomical precision as demonstrated by the sidereal justification in the graphic above therefore Flamsteed's premise and proof of constant axial rotation is incorrect. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
Reed Riddle wrote in message ...
In article , (Oriel36) wrote: Reed Riddle wrote in message ... In article , (Oriel36) wrote: snip a lot of confusing statements snip a lot more stuff I've always believed that your idea is not a good one if you can't explain the basics in a short paragraph. I'm pretty sure that I have a handle on what you're trying to say, but it's so obfuscated that it's not clear at all. You haven't even stated clearly what problem you see or are trying to solve! I will make it simple for you. Does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and would Flamsteed's premise and proof be correct. Here are the outlines of Flamsteed's assumptions and the method he used - "One of Flamsteed's first projects at the Royal Observatory was to attempt to prove that the Earth rotated on its axis at a constant rate. This had been assumed by Copernicus when he first put forward his theory of the solar system but it had never been proved....Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:- .... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical" So, try to make a clear point this time. No more than a few sentences. State the problem clearly. Do that, and I can help you figure out the details more clearly. Reed The choice is simple,what is the correct value for the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees ?. A - 24 hours exactly by means of longitude meridians and the Equation of Time B - 23 hours 56 min 04 sec Give technical reasons in a heliocentric format for your choice. -- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do." Angela Chase, "My so-called life" Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply..... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
In message , Oriel36
writes Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... In message , Oriel36 writes Reed Riddle wrote in message ... In article , (Oriel36) wrote: snip a lot of confusing statements Are you trying to say that they ellipsoidal nature of the Earth's orbit is what causes the varying ratio of the day/night cycle during the year? If so, you might want to look at the length of the day and night in, say, Buenos Aires versus that in Montreal about now, and explain why they are different. The daylight/darkness line is a property of the Earth's orbital orientation at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line. http://solid_earth.ou.edu/notes/sola...from_space.jpg What on Earth do you mean by that, and what does an Apollo picture of the Earth have to do with it? The Earth's axis is inclined to the plane of its orbit. I would be in danger of introducing redundancy if I recycled the procedure again OK, I'll cut and paste for you. I see what you mean now. In your first post you said The daylight/darkness line is always tangential to the Sun/Earth line as indicated by the arrows in the above graphic But the polar axis is _not_ tangential to that line. On Jupiter, where it _is_ almost tangential, day and night have almost the same length. Jupiter does not have marked seasons. Saturn does have seasons, with a 29 year cycle. and the moderator has been gracious enough in permitting a second attempt at explanation of isolating orbital orientation first and then incorporating axial rotation within the framework. Let's move to another group then. Alt.astronomy, perhaps. I don't think a sci. group is appropriate. Simply stated,axial tilt or equatorial orientation to the Sun is not a component of the Equation of Time. Wrong. "That happens not to be the case" :-) Google gives 19,900 hits for "equation of time" and the second one I looked at, http://www.sundials.co.uk/equation.htm shows the graph that results from the sum of the eccentricity and obliquity effects. BTW, the equation of time is linked to the analemma, and http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Classes/MATH198/matownse/others.html looks at how the two effects change the analemmas of other planets, with their different eccentricities and obliquities. Look at his main project page, too. Unfortunately the Equation of Time is currently associated with daylight and darkness asymmetry within the astronomical day whereas its proper association is the total lenght of a day determined by axial rotation to the Sun. http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg You do realise that diagram doesn't show the Earth's orbit? It's a simple illustration to show the effect of an eclipse on the orbital speed. But as Reed Riddle noted, the relative length of day and night has nothing to do with the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Even if, somehow, the rotation period of the Earth was not constant and was associated with the eccentricity, the Earth's orbit is almost circular. It's a function of the tilted axis of the Earth. You do know that the axis is tilted, and when it is summer here it's winter in the Southern hemisphere? The Equation of Time reflects the Earth's axial rotation through the variation in orbital motion back to the Sun/Earth line.The Equation equalises the variation in orbital motion by appropriate addition/subtraction of minutes and seconds depending where the Earth is in its orbital cycle,every 4 minutes represent a change of 1 arc degree off the Sun/Earth line from one axial rotation to the next. That's the most garbled explanation I've ever seen. The equation of time is due to the Earth's orbit not being a circle, so it moves faster when it's closest to the Sun. The Sun therefore appears to move faster. There's also the ecliptic tilt. But civil time depends on a "mean sun", assumed to move at constant speed, because both true solar time and sidereal time would be inconvenient. By applying the Equation of Time,Flamsteed is basically equalising the variations in orbital motion which generate the natural unequal day,not just the elliptical path but the manner in which the Earth moves through that path in accordance with Kepler's second law.The following animation explaining Kepler's second law should be useful here. http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html Mathematically,Flamsteed worked it this way - 360 degrees = 24 hours 1 degree = 4 min .986 degree = 3 min 56 sec 24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm The determination of constant axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec comes at the cost of the loss of astronomical precision as demonstrated by the sidereal justification in the graphic above therefore Flamsteed's premise and proof of constant axial rotation is incorrect. Are you saying the Earth's rotation is _not_ constant (at least to anything beyond a few seconds per year, if that ?) If so, we'd better take this to another group. Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind. That site is simplifying things. As I pointed out, the solar day is _not_ always exactly 24 hours of civil time, because of the slight variation on the Earth's orbit during the year. We don't keep to solar time. -- Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
In article ,
(Oriel36) wrote: I will make it simple for you. Good. Does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and would Flamsteed's premise and proof be correct. Anyone who wishes can go out and measure the rotation speed of the Earth. Set up a telescope, point it at a star, and then shut the drive off once you have the star centered. Mark the time. The next night, mark the time that the star is again centered in the telescope. Repeat the experiment again several times over the next few weeks, so you take care of statistical errors. Anyone here can do the experiment, provided they have a telescope and a mount that will be stable for at least 24 hours. You can do this with a galaxy if you are worried about proper motion of the star in the sky. I have personally written control code for a professional telescope, and it tracks on a star (without locking onto the image). The calculation to determine where the telescope should point is done with standard sidereal timing; nothing special about a varying rotation speed of the Earth is in there (which would have to be taken into account in order to point the telescope. I did know what you were trying to say, by the way, I was just trying to get you to state it clearly instead of hiding behind lots of jargon. The Earth rotates in 23h 56m 4s with respect to the stars (and galaxies and quasars). That is all that matters. How the length of the solar day changes depends on more factors (axial tilt, eccentricity), but none of those factors affect the siderial rotation rate. The Sun, Moon and Jupiter can affect that, but only through gravitational interactions that take a lot longer than a human lifetime. Reed -- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do." Angela Chase, "My so-called life" Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply..... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating the direction of the Earth's orbital motion
Reed Riddle wrote in message ...
In article , (Oriel36) wrote: I will make it simple for you. Good. No Sir,not good enough,I specifically requested a heliocentric justification and your response has been entirely geocentric. The choice is simple,what is the correct value for the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees ?. A - 24 hours exactly by means of longitude meridians and the Equation of Time B - 23 hours 56 min 04 sec Give technical reasons in a heliocentric format for your choice. Does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and would Flamsteed's premise and proof be correct. Anyone who wishes can go out and measure the rotation speed of the Earth. Set up a telescope, point it at a star, and then shut the drive off once you have the star centered. Mark the time. The next night, mark the time that the star is again centered in the telescope. Repeat the experiment again several times over the next few weeks, so you take care of statistical errors. Anyone here can do the experiment, provided they have a telescope and a mount that will be stable for at least 24 hours. You can do this with a galaxy if you are worried about proper motion of the star in the sky. Again,I will make it simple for you. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm The .986 degree orbital displacement represents 3 min 56 sec of axial rotation,Flamsteed ineptly transfered an axial coordinate to an orbital coordinate. In plain language, Flamsteed determines that the difference in the stars circumpolar position from one rotation of the Earth on its axis to the next is due to the Earth's orbital motion of a constant .986 degrees which puts it in direct conflict with Kepler's second law.He trumps up some nonsense of axial tilt to cover the discrepancy between the constant orbital displacement and Kepler's second law which is why you cannot graft the heliocentric justification for the sidereal value into the heliocentric model for Kepler's second law. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg The Earth rotates in 23h 56m 4s with respect to the stars (and galaxies and quasars). That is all that matters. The existing principle of the Earth's axial rotation was already present in the 24 hour/360 degree longitude equivalency using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth with the Sun as a reference.Flamsteed,in using this reference,introduced stellar circumpolar motion as an additional reference and transfered an axial rotational coordinate .986 degree/3 min 56 sec to an orbital coordinate. If you enjoy insincerity then Flamsteed in right up your alley but it is an astronomical disaster. How the length of the solar day changes depends on more factors (axial tilt, eccentricity), but none of those factors affect the siderial rotation rate. The Sun, Moon and Jupiter can affect that, but only through gravitational interactions that take a lot longer than a human lifetime. Reed I have requested an astronomer of distinction to handle a heliocentric treatment of the material,despite the fact that it is not at all difficult to determine the disasterous maneuvering of Flamsteed no such astronomer has come forward.I cannot therefore be faulted for taking it to a group of people who can handle the material which predates the gravitational agenda of Newton and resolve the issue as to why there exists dual rotation rates for the Earth and why the 23 hour 56 min 04 sec value and the method by which that value is ascertained is incorrect. -- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do." Angela Chase, "My so-called life" Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply..... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hans Moravec's Original Rotovator Paper | James Bowery | Policy | 0 | July 6th 04 07:45 AM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |
Mercury Odd Orbital Behavior? | Brian Tung | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | August 24th 03 06:36 AM |