Re: ...What do YOU care about?



oriel36 wrote:

Tough !,you justify the return of a star to a location every 23 hours
56 min utes 04 seconds based on a calendrical cycle of 3 years of 365
days and 1 year pf 366 days.Your mocking turns in on itself and that we
know as stupidity or the priviledge of insulting yourself.

You do not have enough sense to recognise that a star constantly
returning in 23 hours 56 minutes requires an addition day every fourth
year to keep ticking over,simple reasoning then tells you that basing
the annual orbital motion of the Earth and axial rotation on a
calendrical convenience would produce conceptual monsters that
undermine everything astronomy stands for.

So Leap Years are the work of the devil or what?
What difference does it make? did you expect all the rotational velocities of everything in the solar system to mesh up perfectly like some sort of clockwork?
Sure, you could design clocks that would indeed stay in perfect sync with what's going on in the heavens, but it would throw off the times of sunrise and sunset, which would be very inconvenient. in fact after two years you would find that noon was now occurring at midnight, which couldn't be very helpful to scheduling something.
You'd stand the world on end in a very inconvenient manner to try to get it to fit into a set perfectly rational world view.
Still, when it comes right down to it, the closest star is the most
important one as regards to when you should turn the headlights in your
car on.
...and you really botched it big time here, if you want to get that
obtuse - because you ignored something: The interaction between the
Earth, Moon, and Sun in regards to the length of a day. Earth stretches
a bit due to lunar gravity, so your figures are modified at any point on
its surface to a degree of microseconds due to the position of the Moon
and its influence on the ground you are standing on in comparison to
what is exactly at your zenith in the celestial sphere at any particular
time. Moon in one position at zero hour as a reference, and with a
particular point exactly overhead, means that a week from now to get
that same point overhead in relation to the sun in an ideal system...you
are going to have to move several feet sideways.
Which, if nothing else, shows that the statement "God is the still point
in a moving world" works a lot better on moonless planets than around here.

Buckaroo Flanzai

Most of humanity is not aware of your insanity even as it tries to come
to terms with events which link the motions of the Earth with
climatology and imbalances such as global warming.
You want noon today to be at 6 PM next year, then midnight the year after that, then 6 AM the year after that, then noon again, and you think _I'm_ out of it?
The indulgence of the
ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion via the Ra/Dec system
(otherwise known as Newtonian gravitation laws) now works against the
investigation of the relationship between the Earth's axial and orbital
motions in creating climate and cyclical variations.
Again, that's what we have Leap Years for. It gets out of whack, we fix it up, it goes out of whack again, and we fix it again.
As far as climate goes, the only thing we really need concern ourselves with is the relationship between the Earth's rotation on its axis and its rotation around the sun... yes, that does throw things off by around six hours every year, but so what? It's a variation of 1/1460th per year. Which is plenty close enough for government climatological work.
Ultimately it all boils down to the specific error Flamsteed created
that has gone on unchecked for centuries -

"... 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... " Flamsteed using Sirius.


His false 'proof' for constant axial rotation using the star Sirius
uses a system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.I can
enjoy the error on its own terms but unfortunately you numbskulls built
your concepts on the false correlation between axial rotation and
celestial sphere geometry.

What conceptions in particular?

Your mocking turns in on itself and makes you part of the 17th century
parody, possibly the worst possible existence.

Read the Anglo-Saxon chronicle sometime: there are a lot of things worse than having been born on Feb 29th of a leap year, only getting a birthday party every four years, and considering yourself lucky if you live to the ripe old age of 25.
For starters, there could be Vikings pulling your lungs out your back and watching them flop around as a "Blood Eagle" sacrifice to Odin. That could be even worst than setting your alarm clock for 7AM and waking up at 1 PM.

I care enough that
chuildren discover what astronomy actually is and what real achievement
is but a civilisation that makes a mockery of its own achievements for
insincere and obvious rubbish cannot really support itself.

Hey, I'm an amateur astronomer (actually was in charge of running our college's Celestron 7 telescope for our astronomy class, as I was the only one...including the teacher...who knew where the fun stuff to look at was.), but what you've got going on here is something like a medieval mystic would do in regards to it; you're not looking at it as simply a manifestation of the physical world, but rather something that has some deep philosophical and theological meaning...which is closer to astrology than astronomy.


The
normally resilient Western civilisation is under such strain internally
from feebleminded people like yourself,at least in matters of natural
phenomena, that the results are predictable.

So the fault is in ourselves and not our stars, dear Cassius?
Still, fearsome auguries have manifested themselves; a Newt was seen crawling lustily around the White House in broad daylight, Hillary has a lean and hungry look, a barbarian hath seized California, and at the president's last skrying by his medical soothsayer no heart could be found.
A fearsome comet has been seen...and that melancholy hairy star bodes no good for the eagle's children methinks.

Pat
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: question about inclination of earths axis.
    ... How did the ancients know that the axis of Earth is not perpendicular, ... By looking at the apparent path of the Sun in the sky. ... Dreyer's History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler has good coverage ... I watched a good documentary on climate chaos on the BBC last ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Starmapping software
    ... axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour then there is absolutely nothing ... based on axial motion. ... pre-Copernican astronomy and the other in heliocentric astronomy. ... delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: best questions at star parties?
    ... Probably very few folks who have no knowledge of Astronomy would know ... The sidereal scheme has the Earth keeping the same face to the Sun ... orbit.The slowly changing orbital orientation is barely noticable from ... hour but you are all intent in tying axial rotation to the celestial ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Starmapping software
    ... axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour then there is absolutely nothing ... pre-Copernican astronomy and the other in heliocentric astronomy. ... delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth ... resolved the observed motions of the planets, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Starmapping software
    ... When you say that no external reference is required, ... clock system allied to axial rotation and despite the various ... because I am constantly facing the Earth." ... is to be an inheritor of the one true view of astronomy - and how great not ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Quantcast