| |
Main
Date: 08 Jul 2007 10:13:38
From: oriel36
Subject: Astronomical dignity
|
The Wikipedia image is probably the most honest and explicit
representation of the awful 'sidereal time' reasoning which tries to
bridge the difference between the Sun,the distant stars and the axial
rotation of the Earth -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Likewise,the most honest verbal statement of the same awful reasoning
is via the Nasa website which has a location rotate to noon in 24
hours in order to explain the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
using the return of a distant star to a meridian -
'Period Of Rotation'
"The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
the stars. There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in
the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun."
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
The technical details which keep clocks in sync with the axial
cycle,in more familiar terms ;the principles which allow the 24 hours
of Sunday to turn into the 24 hours of Monday are a gift from older
civilisations to ours and all based on the recognition that the daily
cycles are unequal lengths ,as Huygens puts it - " and that those
days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is
known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy".
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
While I cannot account for why people would willingly choose to
believe in awful astrological reasoning which has the noon cycles at
24 hours exactly it has indeed left a sense that out of the current
intellectual darkness a better situation will emerge.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 03:23:35
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> What seals your fate is the silly reasoning behind it -
>
> http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
.
There's nothing wrong with *that* picture, as it doesn't have the kind
of typo that the Wikipedia image does.
> 360 degrees = 24 hours
.
Oh, you do not agree with that.
> 1 degree = 4 minutes
>
> .986 degree = 3 minutes 56 seconds
>
> 24 hours minus 3 mintes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
>
> That is the dismal type of reasoning forced on kids,a silly notion
> that the noon cycles are 24 hours exactly in order to justify the
> Earth's axial and orbital motion using the return of a star to a
> meridian.
>
> The actual principles which create the 24 hour day are magnificent
> yet children and the rest of humanity will suffer the indoctrinated
> garbage of your 'sidereal time' .
.
Actually, one of the reasons that the Earth's axial rotation period of
23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds, is given such a prominent role in the
beginning stages of astronomical education is exactly *because* the
noon cycle is NOT 24 hours exactly.
If the noon cycle *were* 24 hours exactly, it would be a sound basis
on which to base our understanding of other motions. Since it is not
uniform, however, it has to be treated as a *derived* phenomenon. We
still start from the period of 24 hours, because it is familiar to
people from daily life.
By observing that the Earth, in the heliocentric system, moves around
the Sun, we can remind people that the Earth is not in the same
direction from the Sun during the course of a year.
This change in direction accounts for the difference in length between
the axial rotation period, or the so-called "sidereal day", and the
solar day. And the annual *average* of that change in direction
equally well accounts for the difference in length between the axial
rotation period, also called the sidereal day, and the annual
*average* of the solar day, which is 24 hours.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:58:46
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
On Jul 12, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 9:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>> oriel36 wrote:
> >>>> The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
> >>>> so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
> >>>> 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
> >>>> the angular velocity of the earth!
> >>> Good to see everyone has discovered that you cannot use the return of
> >>> a star to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the
> >>> Earth.
> >> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth's Revolution (orbital velocity)
> >> aberration of light
> >> stellar radial velocities (Doppler)
> >> parallax of nearby stars
> >> Gravitation
>
> >> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth Rotation (angular velocity)
> >> Doppler measurements of stars
> >> Foucault Pendulum
> >> Coriolis forces
> >> observation for orbit
>
> > That's right ,you won't dare promote the value of 23 hours 56 minutes
> > 04 seconds on kids again as the value for axial rotation through 360
> > degrees and by using the orbital motion of the Earth.
>
> Historically the second *was* determined with respect to the Sun... so
> get over it Kelleher!
>
> And, of course, a second, now one of the seven fundamental SI units, is
> defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
> cesium-133 atom (BIPM 1998, p. 95).
>
> The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
> so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
> 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
> the angular velocity of the earth!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All those outwardly polished reputations built on the false idea
that the natural noon cycle is 24 hours exactly -
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.3116
What seals your fate is the silly reasoning behind it -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
360 degrees = 24 hours
1 degree = 4 minutes
.986 degree = 3 minutes 56 seconds
24 hours minus 3 mintes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
That is the dismal type of reasoning forced on kids,a silly notion
that the noon cycles are 24 hours exactly in order to justify the
Earth's axial and orbital motion using the return of a star to a
meridian.
The actual principles which create the 24 hour day are magnificent
yet children and the rest of humanity will suffer the indoctrinated
garbage of your 'sidereal time' .
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 18:29:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
.
> > The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
> > so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
> > 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
> > the angular velocity of the earth!
.
> Good to see everyone has discovered that you cannot use the return of
> a star to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the
> Earth.
.
Well, while I am happy to see you found what he said makes sense, I
have to admit that I'm puzzled here. The axial motion of the Earth is
what leads to the return of a star to a meridian, so the observation
of a star returning to a meridian could be used as a starting point
for measuring the axial motion of the Earth. Or even explaining the
axial motion of the Earth.
Since I'm not sure what is meant by the word "justify" as you are
using it, though, it may be that we are still in agreement here. After
all, I do not think the Earth needs an excuse or permission to rotate!
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:09:12
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
On Jul 12, 9:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
> >> The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
> >> so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
> >> 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
> >> the angular velocity of the earth!
>
> > Good to see everyone has discovered that you cannot use the return of
> > a star to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the
> > Earth.
>
> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth's Revolution (orbital velocity)
> aberration of light
> stellar radial velocities (Doppler)
> parallax of nearby stars
> Gravitation
>
> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth Rotation (angular velocity)
> Doppler measurements of stars
> Foucault Pendulum
> Coriolis forces
> observation for orbit
That's right ,you won't dare promote the value of 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds on kids again as the value for axial rotation through 360
degrees and by using the orbital motion of the Earth.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
'Period Of Rotation'
"The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
the stars. There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in
the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun. "
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
There never was a difference between the Sun returning to a meridian
and a star returning to a meridian or rather a means to justify the
axial and orbital motion of the Earth. by using both the Sun and the
distant stars.
You lot spend enougfh time talking of observational 'evidence' and so
on,the only observational evidence that should concern you is that the
noon cycles are unequal,everything else,including your sidereal time
nonsense,is unsatisfactory and counter-productive.
Again,good to see that the usenet guys are breaking ranks with their
peers who promote the return of a star to justify axial and orbital
motion or ratherbelieve the noon cycle is 24 hours exactly -
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.3116
Remember Sam,the hour,minute and second was determined by brilliant
men and will never change regardless of how many numbskulls believe
otherwise.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:15:20
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> oriel36 wrote:
>>>> The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
>>>> so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
>>>> 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
>>>> the angular velocity of the earth!
>>> Good to see everyone has discovered that you cannot use the return of
>>> a star to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the
>>> Earth.
>> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth's Revolution (orbital velocity)
>> aberration of light
>> stellar radial velocities (Doppler)
>> parallax of nearby stars
>> Gravitation
>>
>> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth Rotation (angular velocity)
>> Doppler measurements of stars
>> Foucault Pendulum
>> Coriolis forces
>> observation for orbit
>
> That's right ,you won't dare promote the value of 23 hours 56 minutes
> 04 seconds on kids again as the value for axial rotation through 360
> degrees and by using the orbital motion of the Earth.
>
Historically the second *was* determined with respect to the Sun... so
get over it Kelleher!
And, of course, a second, now one of the seven fundamental SI units, is
defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium-133 atom (BIPM 1998, p. 95).
The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
the angular velocity of the earth!
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 11:38:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2:43 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
> >>> The Wikipedia image is probably the most honest and explicit
> >>> representation of the awful 'sidereal time' reasoning
> >>> Likewise,the most honest verbal statement of the same awful reasoning
> >>> is via the Nasa website which has a location rotate to noon in 24
> >>> hours in order to explain the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
> >>> using the return of a distant star to a meridian -
> >> The Wikipedia image is in error. 24 hours is a mean solar day, 23
> >> hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is an exact sidereal day.
>
> >> The NASA website may merely oversimplify. The statement "There ARE 24
> >> hours in a solar day" may be meant to say "we're not trying to day a
> >> solar day is 23 hours and 56 minutes long" and not as a denial of the
> >> Equation of Time.
>
> >> The notion of "sidereal time" does NOT require denying the Equation of
> >> Time. Yes, because the return of a star is regular by a mechanical
> >> clock, we begin with that in order to get *to* the complex solar day,
> >> which averages to 24 hours, but is complex because of the Equation of
> >> Time.
>
> >> Of course, I realize that the facts don't make much of an impression,
> >> and so you will continue to claim that I'm being dishonest, and that
> >> today's professional astronomers are astrologers at heart. I wish I
> >> could bring you out of the darkness and confusion you are choosing to
> >> dwell in.
>
> >> John Savard
>
> > Go take instructions from the other clown but make sure to tell him
> > when a location is seen to rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly in order
> > to justify the 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value that it does not
> > happen on this planet.
>
> The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
> so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
> 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
> the angular velocity of the earth!
>
Good to see everyone has discovered that you cannot use the return of
a star to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth.
Now Sam,instead of posting those irritating 'warnings' relating to our
parent star (which has made existence possible since life first
appeared on the planet) explain to your peers that this dark
astrological era is finished.
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.5458/viewPage/1
> And, of course, a second, now one of the seven fundamental SI units, is
> defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
> cesium-133 atom (BIPM 1998, p. 95).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you cannot stomach the 'sidereal time' vomit ,and Newton's built
his concept on the astrological 'sidereal time' framework of
Flamsteed, then good for you.it represents a major change in the way
you indoctrinated creatures think and I am satisfied that nobody will
dare promote useless 'sidereal time' concepts again,ever.
Climatological studies require an accurate relationship between the
daily axial cycle and the annual orbital cycle and I assure you the
whole area of climatology and meteorology looks completely different
under the new regime, built on the more accurate principles of the
great structural and timekeeping astronomers.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 19:31:21
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>> The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
>> so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
>> 23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
>> the angular velocity of the earth!
>>
>
>
> Good to see everyone has discovered that you cannot use the return of
> a star to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the
> Earth.
Evidence ("proof") of the Earth's Revolution (orbital velocity)
aberration of light
stellar radial velocities (Doppler)
parallax of nearby stars
Gravitation
Evidence ("proof") of the Earth Rotation (angular velocity)
Doppler measurements of stars
Foucault Pendulum
Coriolis forces
observation for orbit
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 16:32:44
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
On Jul 12, 1:47 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Go take instructions from the other clown but make sure to tell him
> > when a location is seen to rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly in order
> > to justify the 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value that it does not
> > happen on this planet.
>
> .
> Locations don't rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly. You know that, I
> know that, and the people you keep calling empiricists (which is true)
> and/or astrologers (which is insulting and false) know that too, and
> they're not trying to deceive anyone into thinking otherwise.
>
I cannot account for why genuine people are doing this,why they would
willingly create a difference between the return of the noon cycle in
24 hours exactly in order to justify the return of a star to a
location using the axial and orbital motion of the Earth -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
I do not mind the silly astrological view of axial and orbital motion
but I do mind the phony concerns for climate imbalances (such as
global warming ) when the same people have not got the basics of axial
and orbital motion or rather believe in a 'sidereal time' system which
does not exist except in the imagination.Climate studies mesh with the
motions of the Earth in a very precise way yet the contemporary
'sidereal time' view has the Earth orbitally keep the same face to the
Sun over an orbital cycle -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
Much of the great achievements of humanity is wrapped up in the
principles which give us the 24 hour day,have these daily cycles
elapse into each other and eventually into the convenience of the
calendar system.The failure to promote the difference between the
observed natural cycles and the human devised principles or rather to
use the human invention of the 24 hour day and the clock to dictate
the natural cycles is absolutely shocking and made moreso by 'sidereal
time; dominance.
Having everybody absolve themselves of any responsibility is quite an
experience,I would have thought the recent discovery of the document
of Huygen's would have been enough to bring at least one intelligent
person onboard but it has not happened leaving a sense of dismay,
that is genuine and therein I take pride.The great astronomers ,having
suffered the vandalism of Flamsteed/Newtonian empiricism or rather a
cross between astrology and experimentation,will find a renewed
vibrancy again with the arrival of the internet and a few genuine
souls who have the courage and the intelligence enough to act with
dignity and respect.
To get people to recognise that the total length of the noon cycles
are unequal is a major achievement and I am satisfied that the next
step can be easily taken in recognising how the average 24 hour day
was transfered to the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes as a 24
hour/360 degree correlation,as Huygen's says -
'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much
they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.'
" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12.
Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5
hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon
to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd
in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days,
a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c.
(the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that
revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to
which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is
regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
In this topic where not dignity has been accorded to astronomers it is
about time that others started to openly discuss the difference
between the observed unequality in the natural noon cycles and why a
idiotic bunch of people believe that the noon cycles are 24 hours
exactly in order to use the return of a star to justify axial rotation
and orbital motion.
> Rotating to noon in 24 hours exactly is _not_ needed to explain the 23
> hour, 56 minute, and almost 4 second return of a star. Although the
> difference between the solar day and 24 hours can be ignored when
> taking that first step, and then the uniformity of the Earth's axial
> rotation - as opposed to it being an average over a year - can be
> inferred from actual meridian observations, and Newton's Laws as
> applied to rotation.
>
> You can subtract the Earth's motion from an annual average 24 hour day
> just as you can subtract the Earth's motion from a planet without a
> tilted axis, in a perfectly circular orbit, where places do rotate to
> noon in exactly 24 hours.
>
> Then we can bring the Equation of Time in on our way *back* to the
> solar day.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 04:47:42
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Go take instructions from the other clown but make sure to tell him
> when a location is seen to rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly in order
> to justify the 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value that it does not
> happen on this planet.
.
Locations don't rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly. You know that, I
know that, and the people you keep calling empiricists (which is true)
and/or astrologers (which is insulting and false) know that too, and
they're not trying to deceive anyone into thinking otherwise.
Rotating to noon in 24 hours exactly is _not_ needed to explain the 23
hour, 56 minute, and almost 4 second return of a star. Although the
difference between the solar day and 24 hours can be ignored when
taking that first step, and then the uniformity of the Earth's axial
rotation - as opposed to it being an average over a year - can be
inferred from actual meridian observations, and Newton's Laws as
applied to rotation.
You can subtract the Earth's motion from an annual average 24 hour day
just as you can subtract the Earth's motion from a planet without a
tilted axis, in a perfectly circular orbit, where places do rotate to
noon in exactly 24 hours.
Then we can bring the Equation of Time in on our way *back* to the
solar day.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 10:22:46
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
On Jul 12, 2:43 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The Wikipedia image is probably the most honest and explicit
> > representation of the awful 'sidereal time' reasoning
> > Likewise,the most honest verbal statement of the same awful reasoning
> > is via the Nasa website which has a location rotate to noon in 24
> > hours in order to explain the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
> > using the return of a distant star to a meridian -
>
> The Wikipedia image is in error. 24 hours is a mean solar day, 23
> hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is an exact sidereal day.
>
> The NASA website may merely oversimplify. The statement "There ARE 24
> hours in a solar day" may be meant to say "we're not trying to day a
> solar day is 23 hours and 56 minutes long" and not as a denial of the
> Equation of Time.
>
> The notion of "sidereal time" does NOT require denying the Equation of
> Time. Yes, because the return of a star is regular by a mechanical
> clock, we begin with that in order to get *to* the complex solar day,
> which averages to 24 hours, but is complex because of the Equation of
> Time.
>
> Of course, I realize that the facts don't make much of an impression,
> and so you will continue to claim that I'm being dishonest, and that
> today's professional astronomers are astrologers at heart. I wish I
> could bring you out of the darkness and confusion you are choosing to
> dwell in.
>
> John Savard
Go take instructions from the other clown but make sure to tell him
when a location is seen to rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly in order
to justify the 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value that it does not
happen on this planet.
This was a standalone thread with a definitive statement attached and
so it stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 17:44:13
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:43 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>> The Wikipedia image is probably the most honest and explicit
>>> representation of the awful 'sidereal time' reasoning
>>> Likewise,the most honest verbal statement of the same awful reasoning
>>> is via the Nasa website which has a location rotate to noon in 24
>>> hours in order to explain the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
>>> using the return of a distant star to a meridian -
>> The Wikipedia image is in error. 24 hours is a mean solar day, 23
>> hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is an exact sidereal day.
>>
>> The NASA website may merely oversimplify. The statement "There ARE 24
>> hours in a solar day" may be meant to say "we're not trying to day a
>> solar day is 23 hours and 56 minutes long" and not as a denial of the
>> Equation of Time.
>>
>> The notion of "sidereal time" does NOT require denying the Equation of
>> Time. Yes, because the return of a star is regular by a mechanical
>> clock, we begin with that in order to get *to* the complex solar day,
>> which averages to 24 hours, but is complex because of the Equation of
>> Time.
>>
>> Of course, I realize that the facts don't make much of an impression,
>> and so you will continue to claim that I'm being dishonest, and that
>> today's professional astronomers are astrologers at heart. I wish I
>> could bring you out of the darkness and confusion you are choosing to
>> dwell in.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Go take instructions from the other clown but make sure to tell him
> when a location is seen to rotate to noon in 24 hours exactly in order
> to justify the 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value that it does not
> happen on this planet.
>
The *measured* angular velocity of the earth is about 0.72921158553 x 10^-4 Rad/s,
so a star retuning to a local meridian takes 86164.0905 seconds which is
23h 56m 4.09056s which doesn't have anything to do with anything other than
the angular velocity of the earth!
And, of course, a second, now one of the seven fundamental SI units, is
defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium-133 atom (BIPM 1998, p. 95).
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 10:19:45
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
On Jul 12, 10:44 am, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <1184201008.111356.303...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is an exact sidereal day.
>
> No, that's not an exact length of the sidereal day, it's an approximation.
> 23h 56m 4.1s is a better approximation to the length of the sidereal day.
> 23h 56m 4.09s is an even better approximation - but it's not exact either.
>
> Please don't misuse the word 'exact' ......
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Climatological studies are completely different when the astrological
geometry behind the 'sidereal day' is jettisoned,particularly the use
of the return of a star to a meridian using the axial and orbital
motions of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
I come from a heritage which recognises that the noon cycles are
unequal,tha the standard 24 hour day is a useful human conception and
how great astronomers applied the 'average 24 hour day to the axial
cycle and terrestrial longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
Everything is easy to understand which is why I cannot account for the
behavior of good people,I mean,genuine people who must be aware that
not grasping basic things like the unequal natural noon cycle has
consequences that far exceed the appearance of a simple concept.You
pair of clowns come from the empirical tradition and although you
appear to be capable of writing whatever you want in this forum
without objection,surely the level which assigns a geometry where a
location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours has to be the lowest of
low points in civilisation.
The great astronomers retain their dignity and even if no person here
is intelligent enough to appreciate or support their achievements then
what does it matter,everybody will still use the 24 hour/360 degree
correlation regardless of the dominance of an astrological view
wrapped up in 23 hours 56 min 04 seconds.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 17:43:28
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The Wikipedia image is probably the most honest and explicit
> representation of the awful 'sidereal time' reasoning
> Likewise,the most honest verbal statement of the same awful reasoning
> is via the Nasa website which has a location rotate to noon in 24
> hours in order to explain the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
> using the return of a distant star to a meridian -
The Wikipedia image is in error. 24 hours is a mean solar day, 23
hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is an exact sidereal day.
The NASA website may merely oversimplify. The statement "There ARE 24
hours in a solar day" may be meant to say "we're not trying to day a
solar day is 23 hours and 56 minutes long" and not as a denial of the
Equation of Time.
The notion of "sidereal time" does NOT require denying the Equation of
Time. Yes, because the return of a star is regular by a mechanical
clock, we begin with that in order to get *to* the complex solar day,
which averages to 24 hours, but is complex because of the Equation of
Time.
Of course, I realize that the facts don't make much of an impression,
and so you will continue to claim that I'm being dishonest, and that
today's professional astronomers are astrologers at heart. I wish I
could bring you out of the darkness and confusion you are choosing to
dwell in.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 08:44:32
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Astronomical dignity
|
In article <1184201008.111356.303150@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is an exact sidereal day.
No, that's not an exact length of the sidereal day, it's an approximation.
23h 56m 4.1s is a better approximation to the length of the sidereal day.
23h 56m 4.09s is an even better approximation - but it's not exact either.
Please don't misuse the word 'exact' ......
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
|
