Re: The Seas
- From: oriel36 <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:23:08 -0700
On Oct 18, 10:16 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
So John,what would you like to get rid of in the difference between
the natural noon cycle and the human devised 24 hour cycle.I give you
the answer when Flamsteed tried to tamper with the correlation which
keeps clocks in sync with the axial cycle as 24 hours/360 degrees.
I don't need to remove anything that is observed.
My page, which discusses the Equation of Time,
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
shows:
- One can, and indeed must, begin from a uniform axial rotation of the
Earth with a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
- The change in orbital orientation in the direction from the Earth to
the Sun over the course of one year accounts for the difference
between the average 24 hour day and this period of sidereal axial
rotation.
- The fact that the 24 hour day is only an average results from two
factors: the first is that the Earth's orbit around the sun is not a
perfect circle, but is instead an ellipse, and this ellipse is one in
which the Earth moves at a varying speed as shown by Kepler, and the
second is that the axis of the Earth's rotation is not perpendicular
to the plane of the Earth's orbit, leading to the Earth's orbit being
foreshortened when considered in relation to the Earth's rotation.
This, the conventional explanation, does lead accurately to the
observed discrepancies between sundials and clocks - as well as
fitting together with everything else.
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. " Newton
Newton, here, admits that absolute space cannot be observed directly,
and careful reasoning is required to separate out the Earth's axial
rotation, exactly as you note.
As you are the biggest supporter of the framehopping Newton and the
unfortunate Flamsteed.Thankfully people can now see what Newton was
doing,a contrivced mess created out of muddleheaded reasoning and
scraps of astronomical knowledge. with an established conclusion in
mind.
I don't think other people are understanding your ideas any more than
I do.
I believe in the goodness of people despite seeing no effort put into
understanding the stable and exciting methods and insights of the
great astronomers including the first great magnification astronomer -
Galileo.
It isn't because people are wicked that they have chosen to accept
Newton. I believe that your objections to Newton's work are due to a
misunderstanding, whether of Newton or of Copernicus.
All that
matters to you is being 'smart' but there is nothing astronomically
smart the way you think and it seems that you impress yourself in
finding ways to defend ideas which are astrological rather than
astronomical.
No: being _right_ *does* matter to me. You may think I defend the
established view, even though I ought to know it is wrong and you are
right, to be accepted, but if so, you are mistaken. I defend the
established view because I genuinely believe - and have seen no reason
from you to change that belief - that it is, in fact, correct, and
your claims that it is wrong are false, and your claims that it is in
some way not legitimate or is unprecedented are, at best, irrelevant.
It is a knack John,a gift that some people develop if
they can get past silly empirical notions.
You will need to explain how there *is* a beyond to empiricism in this
area.
John Savard
You are a champion of Newton's absolute/relative space or his
hypothetical observer on the Sun to resolve retrogrades.Those with a
gift of astronomy and Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler had it recognise
the seamless observation where the Earth orbital motion resolves
retrogrades leaving axial rotation to explain the daily cycle -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Everybody now has a chance to see where they stand without any
objection from me,whether they follow the astrological framework of
Newton/Flamsteed or whether they can make sense of those images in
accordance with Galileo and Copernicus -
"For your better comprehension, know that Copernicus first explains
the remarkable consequences to the various planets deriving from the
annual movement of the earth; in particular the forward and retrograde
movements of the three outer planets. Then he adds that these apparent
mutations which are perceived to be greater in Mars than in Jupiter,
from Jupiter's being more distant, and still less in Saturn, from its
being farther away than Jupiter, remain imperceptible in the fixed
stars because of their immense distance from us in comparison with the
distance of Jupiter or of Saturn" - SALV (Galileo)
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
You see nothing wrong with Newton's approach or will find his
statements agreeing with Galileo's and find it impossible to believe
otherwise,it may be that there are more than a few here who are good
enough to spot the difference and why it is importance,at least brief
glimpses or in outlines.
It would have been brilliant had this been resolved by the
magnification branch of astronomy and especially using the texts of
Galileo but unfortunately the dumb Flamsteed/Newton framework is still
supported,if not by your admirable conviction but by the silence.You
are free to run riot here and good for you.
.
- References:
- The Seas
- From: kirovs
- Re: The Seas
- From: Quadibloc
- Re: The Seas
- From: oriel36
- Re: The Seas
- From: Quadibloc
- The Seas
- Prev by Date: Re: High Rotation is the Source of Magma
- Next by Date: Re: Anyone Comment on the New Canon 40D for Astro work?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Seas
- Next by thread: CCD Image Processing Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
