Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:19:02 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote, in part:
On Oct 6, 7:07 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
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.

What 24 hour day does a star Not return 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier
and you get your answer ?

There is no such day.

You need the calendar system of 365/366 days to make it work for on
the 1st March,whether a leap year or not, a star will return 3
minutes 56 seconds earlier than the day before.

Indeed true, whether that day was the 28th of February or the 29th? But
so what?

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

No two cycles are the same. No two cycles are commensurate.

But the Earth turns a certain amount in a day - 1 rotation plus one
365.25th part of a rotation.

And the Earth moves a certain amount in a day around the Sun - one
365.25th part of a revolution.

Take away the part of the revolution from the part of the rotation, and
you have the Earth facing the Sun again after the one day.

But this is not exact, because the Earth's rotation is tilted compared
to the revolution, and the revolution is in an ellipse, not a circle -
so the day still averages to 24 hours, but you have the Equation of
Time.

That this one day is an odd fraction of the year does not matter at all.
In any way, shape, or form. Why should it?

I think even you can see why the statement of Flamsteed is invalid now
in terms of being calendrically based -

"... 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... " John Flamsteed


It sometimes happens that a premise can be presented in a neat form
and answered accordingly.By taking a wider view,specifically the enite
1461 day calendrical cycle it is possible to affirm that Flamsteed's
statement is invalid.Of course there is nobody around to gauge the
impact of this but there is nothing I can do about that.

If you did have the truth, what you could do is explain it more clearly.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: questions about UTC time, definitions, leap seconds, and
    ... >> 9,192,632,060 cycles instead of 9,192,631,770 cycles of this cesium ... "cesium time") in 1967 before they were dealing with the leap seconds. ... rotation of the Earth *has* to be slowing down, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: how long is a day on Venus?
    ... revolution, then one day on Venus amounts to how many days on Earth? ... rotation is, the period of rotation doesn't change. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • how long is a day on Venus?
    ... If Venus's direction of rotation was the same as its direction of ... revolution, then one day on Venus amounts to how many days on Earth? ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... But the Earth turns a certain amount in a day - 1 rotation plus one ... 365.25th part of a revolution. ... using the calendar system via the return of a star to a location and ... and answered accordingly.By taking a wider view,specifically the enite ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... Do you believe that the earth rotates on its axis and also rotates ... in it's course, or orbit, since it is fixed in an orbit. ... the earth turning one revolution. ... As for whether the sun revolves around the earth... ...
    (talk.origins)