Re: Avoiding the Leap Second

On Jun 8, 2:35 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
A location on Earth does not rotate to noon in 24 hours
A location on Earth does not rotate to face noon in 24 hours
A location on Earth does not rotate to face the Sun in 24 hours

.
Yes, because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so the correction from
the Equation of Time changes slightly each day.


The creation of the 24 hour cycle from the unequal natural noon cycle
is based on a simple,do you hear, a simple recognition that no two
natural cycles are alike -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Aequation"

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Unless there is a severe diseased mind there is absolutely no way a
person is going to miss the connection between the variations in noon
cycle and the 24 hour cycle.For whatever reason,and I cannot account
for it even allowing that Newton's concepts are built on the
astrological framework of 'sidereal time', people believe that a
location rotates to face noon in 24 hours -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

I have not overstated the situation where the dominant concept at the
core of astronomy is a creationist-type affair all wrapeed up in
justifying the Earth's motions using celestial sphere geometry.The
behavior of people is shocking even for this person accustomed to the
cult thinking of empiricists for all you are doing is trying to avoid
the basic fact that Flamsteed made a specific mistake by tying axial
rotation directly to a return of a star to a meridian.






If anyone has any questions about the unequal noon cycle then I refer
them to Huygens treatise where all questions are answered -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

.
Since no one else seems to have come to the same conclusions as you
about current astronomical thinking being wrong-headed *from* the
writings of Huyghens or Copernicus, I'm afraid you're reading more
into those writings than others do.


The treatise of Huygens is the first real detailed schematic which
superimposes the Equation of Time generated 24 hour day onto
terrestrial longitudes as a 4 minutes for each degree of geographical
seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.I am rightly proud of that
great human achievement and especially as it is derived from the
original Copernican insight which uses the Earth's orbital motion to
explain the behavior of the other planets.As somebody who is involved
in the engineering business, these two Western insights in structural
and timekeeping astronomy and the way they are linked by brilliant
reasoning,they are a marvel and a joy to behold.

You come here day and and day out and try to talk your way out of a
basic mistake but I only see it as ignoring the basic correlation
which keep clocks in sync with the axial cycle at 15 degrees per hour
and 24 hours/360 degrees.You make up the same stories that Newton made
up in hijacking the careful work of so many,many people that went into
the emergence of Copernican heliocentricity and replace it with a mess
that serves no end but to rot our civilisation from the inside,a
publically funded pretensious exercise at the expense of genuine human
achievements.

What do you do when you discover that at the core of all your concepts
is a silly mistake -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html

Those big institutions and especially the Nasa website who promote a
23 hour 56 minute value using the motions of the Earth should really
look at the actual methods proposed by Huygens in how the 24 hour day
is generated and then how it is applied to the axial cycle as a 24
hour/360 degrees correlation thereby helping humanity rather than
trying to twist things into a convoluted mess.

If you think it is me against everyone else you can forget it,as far
as I am concerned I am presenting the original reasoning which derives
directly from the insights of Copernicus and show where the guys in
the late 17th century jumped the tracks and subsequently how the
'astrological' indoctrination still survives in this day and age.It is
a serious matter considering that the public fund concepts which are
counter-productive ,novelistic, downright silly and all with that 23
hour 56 minute value at its core.










quoting me:



Not the Earth facing a distant star every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds. That is still regular like clockwork - even if, Nature being
imperfect, it isn't *quite* as regular as the best hydrogen masers.

No. Only the Earth facing the Sun every 24 hours is compromised.
Hence, the Equation of Time.

Conclusion: thinking about the Earth's motions by taking the 23 hour,
56 minute, and 4 second period as one of the elements of those motions
makes understanding them simpler.

Indeed,there is another group who like to keep things simple based on
having the same problems with the 24 hour day and natural
phenomena,they are called the creationists.Personally,I find you lot
far worse because of your dominance but humanity has yet to grow out
of 'time travel' and other such nonsense based on that core error by
Flamsteed.

.
It's "now" everywhere. When it is 6 PM EST on the East Coast, it is
5PM CST in the Midwest, 4PM MST on the leeward side of the Rockies,
and 3PM PST on the West Coast, but these are just different names for
the same time; at one moment, the places on the Earth are in a 360
degree circle, so they are facing, in relation to the Sun, in all
different directions, corresponding to all the 24 hours of the day.

People call the same moment in time by different clock names simply
because, where they live, the Sun is in a different direction, so the
local time of day differs; for some, it is time to wake up, for others
time to eat lunch, for others time to eat supper, and for others time
to go to bed. The moment in time is the same, but the time of day is
different. There is no "time travel" here.

I find it extremely unlikely that the intelligent people who
"dominate" astronomy and physics have made some terrible mistake in
understanding the Solar System, comparable to the fallacies of
Creationists.

Instead, what I think has happened is that you have made some mistake
in understanding what ordinary astronomers believe. Or, it could be
that you do believe something about the Solar System that is not true,
but which Copernicus and Huyghens do not appear, to you, to
contradict. It could even be that the argument is not about facts, but
is about semantic choices in describing the Solar System.

It is unfortunate that you feel that it is not feasible for you to
explain your view in more detail; I assure you, neither the Huyghens
quote, nor the animated GIF of Mars going retrogade seem in any way
surprising to conventional astronomers. Of course, I feel it
unfortunate because my wish is to show you exactly where you went
wrong, excactly what you have failed to understand, so you can be
content that today's astronomers have *not* forgotten something
important.

Everything fits; they can tell you where the marks should go on a
sundial with their theories, so they haven't lost the Equation of
Time, they can tell you when planets will go retrogade. And everything
is simple in their point of view; isn't the best way to explain how a
mechanical orrery works from the viewpoint of the table it's sitting
on, rather than from one of the moving globes in it? They see the
Solar System moving in just about the same way as such an orrery (a
geared model of the Solar System with orbits to scale but the planets
enlarged).

John Savard- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two Questions...
    ... Astronomy stopped at Roemer,after that Newton bundled the Keplerian ... "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... But from the sun they are ... you can't remove more greenhouse gases from ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
    ... longer by the rotation of the Earth. ... the Earth with respect to the Earth-Sun line. ... cycle are from the dignified,do you hear this,the dignified Equation ... conceptual monsters from structural and timekeeping astronomy then ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Since its cloudy
    ... Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by JOHANNES KEPLER ... centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Since its cloudy
    ... Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by JOHANNES KEPLER ... centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: what has happened to people
    ... Equation of Time principles which hold together the creation of the ... The idea that a 1461 day calendrical cycle split into 3 years of 365 ... annual motions of the Earth,the conception contained in Flamsteed's ... statement,is probably the most controversial error in all astronomy - ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading