Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

oriel36 wrote:
Technically impossible,trying to fit the axial and orbital motion
cycles into a constellational system of 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days is impossible,that it has all the traits of a
'predictive' clockwork system would normally have somebody wide-eyed
with disbelief but I have yet to see one person grasp the easy to
follow reasoning.If a star returns constantly to a location and it
requires an additionalleap day every 4th year it should follow that
you are not dealing with a concept of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes but
rather the calendrical convenience of 365/366 days.

I'm afraid I don't understand that at all.

1/(23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds) + 1/(365 days 5 hours 49 minutes) =
1/(24 hours).

Because the Earth's axial rotation is not in the same plane as the
Ecliptic, and because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, 24 hours is
only the average length of a solar day, and we have the Equation of
Time, even though both "23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds" and "365 days 5
hours 49 minutes" are "exact" - that is, uniform except for minute
discrepancies, while the Equation of Time is a much larger recurrent
difference between the actual solar day and the average solar day.

This uses the actual rotation of the Earth and the actual revolution
of the Earth as sources of angular velocity.

Because we are adding angular velocities, there is NO need in that
equation to think of chopping up the year into whole days. We do that
as a calendrical convenience, but that has NOTHING to do with adding
rates of angular movement.

Your claim that it "obviously" has to involve the discontinuity of the
leap year, and is therefore invalid, does not appear to rest on any
reason that I can see whatever.

John Savard

.