Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Feb 2007 08:14:14 -0800
On Feb 25, 7:36 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25 Feb 2007 03:36:09 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:52 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 03:01:00 -0800, "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
You call me one thing or another and that is fine but I have still yet
to see a genuine commentator recognise that the creation of the 24
hour day through the Equation of Time correction was the work of
brilliant and careful people who recognised that the Total length of
the natural daily cycle,as determined at noon,was unequal.
"the Total length of the natural daily cycle,as determined at
noon,was unequal" - unequal to what?
... aah - never mind.
You clearly understand that you are arguing against the correlation
which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation and this is probably
one of the greatest human achievements known,a product of the Equation
of Time correction which recognises that no two natural daily
cycles,as determined at noon, are equal in length.
I don't clearly understand anything of the kind.
Nor do you understand that a single thing on it's own can be neither
'equal' nor 'unequal' unless you compare it to another thing. Your
logic is faulty and so is you use of the english language.
The natural unequal length of the daily cycle,as determined at noon as
opposed to the human devised equable 24 hour cycle,as determined by
the noon Equation of Time correction.
This is becoming embarrassing,for if you truly wish to believe that a
location rotates to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly then there is
little I can do convince you otherwise.I should have received support
for a shared astronomical timekeeping heritage which recognises why
the Equation of Time is neccessary to bridge natural noon from clock
noon insofar as the principles are the most commonly used convenience
on the planet and an incredible human achievement.
My involvement in this forum extends only to promoting how clocks
evolved from earlier devices such as sundials and how it grafts in
with the heliocentric discovery of axial rotation and how clocks keep
in sync with axial rotation via the Equation of Time correction and I
have kept structural astronomy to a bare minimum is explaining how the
average 24 hour day was overlayed on terrestrail longitudes and how
they adopted a stance of constant axial rotation for the pragmatic
purpose of 4 minutes clock time for 1 degree of geographical
seperation.
This pretensious business of celestial sphere geometry (23 hours 56
min 04 sec) is only a more damaging version of Piltdown man and
nobody really cares about the last century's exotic ideas of warped
space and time travel which emerged as the symptoms of the unattended
late 17th century error which tied axial rotation to constellational
geometry.
Your community owes it to humanity to at least reflect how brilliant
men devised the 24 hour cycle from the variations in length of the
natural cycle,if you cannot do that then you become part of a
terrible,terrible problem.
You ask " unequal to what" and the only answer can be to the genius of
human ingenuity which creates the 24 hour day,keeps one 24 hour cycle
elapsing seamlessy into the next 24 hour cycle (Monday turns into
Tuesday,Tuesday turns into Wedneday...) and which in turns provides
the basis of a calendar system.The calendar system is a brilliant
extension of the 24 hour day by equalising the annual cyclical
length,as calculated by 24 hours days into a linear form as
progression of years.
Never mind indeed !,what can be said of individuals who cannot even
promote the simple fact that the natural daily cycles are unequal and
how men devised a system which creates the 24 hour day as recognition
of the care our ancestors took in noting the astronomical cycles and
how they evolved when heliocentric reasoning emerged through the
Copernican discoveries.
You, sir, are unequal.
Unequal to what, I will leave you to decide.
---- snip ----
Eric Stevens- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: oriel36
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: Tedd Jacobs
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: oriel36
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: Tom McDonald
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: Doug Weller
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: Tedd Jacobs
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: oriel36
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: oriel36
- Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- From: Eric Stevens
- Longitude and the Equation of Time
- Prev by Date: Re: Better example
- Next by Date: Re: Better example
- Previous by thread: Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- Next by thread: Re: Longitude and the Equation of Time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|