Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: 10 Jun 2004 05:03:41 -0700

"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<40c6d127$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> Perhaps this time I found a point that I can grasp:
>
> "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.0406080445.8e5d360@posting.google.com...
> SNIP
>
> > Newton,borrowing on Flamsteed, incorrectly operated on the principle
> > that heliocentric coordinates are equivalent to geocentric coordinates
> > and set in motion the shift away from pure astronomy to the 'laws of
> > physics'.Flamsteed's orginal premise and proof that the Earth rotates
> > through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is almost creationist in
> > stature,given that his principle concern was the translation of
> > celestial coordinates to terrestial longitudinal coordinates in order
> > to solve the longitude problem,it would amount to astronomical fraud
> > if he misled the mathematician into accepting the sidereal format as
> > valid for heliocentric modelling.
> >
> > http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html
>
> Do you mean that, according to you, the earth does *not* rotate through 360
> degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec?!

Yes,the Earth does Not rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min
04 sec.

I assure you it is well worth the effort to determine why Flamsteed's
premise for proving that the Earth rotates at a constant rate by
linking the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion is
 incorrectly piggybacking on an older assumption that already
incorporates axial rotation to be constant as exactly 24 hours
through 360 degrees by means of the longitude meridians and the
Equation of Time adjustment at noon.

Take a look at the relevant passage -

"One of Flamsteed's first projects at the Royal Observatory was to
attempt to prove that the Earth rotated on its axis at a constant
rate. This had been assumed by Copernicus when he first put forward
his theory of the solar system but it had never been
proved.......Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting
the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into
solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the
Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-

... 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... "

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html

If I may isolate one sentence from that passage -

"Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the
sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar
time,"

Basically Flamsteed applied the Equation of Time which equalises all
the orbital variations and facilitates the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency for axial rotation using the Sun as a
reference.Graphically,this can be demonstrated with the following
animation explaining Kepler's second law. -

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html

Mathematically Flamsteed does this -

360 degrees = 24 hours

1 degree = 4 min

.986 degree = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm

Considering that the Earth does Not axially rotate to face the Sun
every 24 hours (hence the need for the Equation of Time) and does not
have a constant orbital displacement of .986 degrees ,I would say that
proving the Earth rotates constantly through 360 degrees in 23 hours
56 min 04 sec is astronomically a costly mistake.

However difficult it may be initially,you will see the outlines of a
fascinating story emerge as Newton does not pick up on Flamsteed's
false proof ultimately leading to a celestial sphere framework
developed in later centuries.

> Then what coordinate system do you use?
>
> Harald

Newton used Kepler's insights to formulate his gravitational
agenda,the reason contemporaries are eager to frame Newton's
gravitational treatment as a clockwork universe is because Newton
adopts Flamsteed's sidereal format where heliocentric and geocentric
perspectives are equivalent.The actual combined axial and orbital
motion of the Earth is not mechanical at all,whatever factors are
involved in those motions they cannot be reduced to solely
gravitational causes,at least not in the framework of Newton.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
    ... You can ask these astronomers why they believe that the Earth rotates ... Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:" John Harrison ... axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour (despite belief in another value ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
    ... Harrsion's concern would have been the constant pace which a clock ... These freaks attribute two values for axial rotation through 360 ... Earth does not rotate to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly hence the ... "Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Old Copernicus (Heliocentricity) Foundation
    ... You freaks can't qualify axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours ... "Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º ... who tied terrestial longitudes directly to the celestial sphere in ... celestial sphere/calendar system which generates the sidereal averages ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
Quantcast