Re: Congratulations guys !
- From: palsing <palsing@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
On May 31, 12:18 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 7:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
I would not try to convince a flat Earther or his error or one who
can't acknowledge a rotating Earth,not even an astrologer who equates
the return of a star to a meridian directly with daily rotation
through 360 degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
That is what the English speaking world has to look at when you posit
23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,whatever you think of yourselves I do
not know but like everything else,when you would rather see kids see
that junk then I already know.
Actually, Gerald, you can make this measurement your self. Find some
bright star (not the sun or the moon) and sight along something. Do
the same the next night, and you will find that the earth rotates
360° aligning to the same star, every 86,164.09 seconds.
The measuring device,in this case,a 24 hour clock, is built into
planetary geometry via the 24 hours/360 degree meridians -http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/Library/books/AK/8-2_...
The maximum distance corresponding to 4 minutes of clock time and 1
degree of geographical separation is at the Equator and diverges to a
miminum point of rotation at the geographical poles,the actually
tables which carry the 24 hour/distance correspondence and
subsequently the information of planetary shape and rotation has
always been here -
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables...
The 24,900 miles spanning the Equatorial circumference corresponding
to both 24 hour and 360 degrees cannot be divorced as facts,how many
miles does the Earth rotate in 24 hours?,how hours does the Earth
rotate take through 24,900 miles ?,if one degree is 69 miles,how many
miles are in 360 degrees at the equator ?.
The manner in how daily rotation is isolated to maintain the 24 hour/
360 degree correlation may be a little tricky for those unfamiliar
with the process which references daily rotation to noon and the
natural inequality which occurs through orbital motion but the
incremental transfer of the average 24 hour day to 'constant' daily
rotation does not require any input from the astrological framework
hence the 'sidereal time' fallacy.
Nobody's
posit requires. You can observe this for yourself and know that it
is correct. 360° rotation takes 86,164.09 seconds.
Among other things,I am sure students would love to know where the 24
hour day comes from and how the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24
hours of Tuesday,they will learn this by allowing the proper
astronomical reference of the noon Sun to be restored as point of
departure for the Earth's rotation and then move on to the orbital
cycle and the calendar convenience referenced to the stellar
background,just as it always has been for thousands of years.
I looked at the modified 'sidereal time' explanation and this guy
didn't even manage to get your false correlation right -
"Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at
any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night,
until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has
transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
It is,of course,an intellectual holocaust when the most used search
engine and most referenced website on the planet
will generate this answer to the English speaking world.With nobody
to stabilize the situation (the planetary 'definition' fiasco that has
been left to drift),all the great informational resources and
technology end in junk like this.
Maybe people will eventually ask important questions and not allow
this to continue into a bigger debacle than it already is insofar as
that modified Wikipedia 'answer' is straight out of sci.astro.amateur.
Didn't you promise to leave???
.
- References:
- Congratulations guys !
- From: oriel36
- Re: Congratulations guys !
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Congratulations guys !
- From: oriel36
- Re: Congratulations guys !
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Congratulations guys !
- From: oriel36
- Congratulations guys !
- Prev by Date: Re: Congratulations guys !
- Next by Date: Re: This is not good enough
- Previous by thread: Re: Congratulations guys !
- Next by thread: Re: Congratulations guys !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|