NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 28 Jun 2007 13:07:32
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)

SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE REFERENCE

SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr

Paris, 28 June 2007

Bulletin C 34

To authorities responsible
for the measurement and
distribution of time

INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI

NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007.
The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
International Atomic Time TAI is :

from 2006 January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s

Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of December
or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed every
six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm that there
will be no time step at the next possible date.

Daniel GAMBIS
Director
Earth Orientation Center of IERS
Observatoire de Paris, France

Date: 03 Jul 2007 19:24:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 3, 8:41 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:10:13 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It has not stopped you freaks from believing that a location rotates
> >to noon in 24 hours exactly...
>
> >There are too many numbskulls who can grasp the simple fact that a
> >location does not rotate to noon in 24 hours...
>
> So just to be clear about this, "freaks" believe that a location rotates
> to noon in 24 hours, and "numbskulls" believe that a location does not
> rotate to noon in 24 hours.
>
> Which are you?
>

Typo as usual so just to be clear -

A location does not,I repeat,does not rotate to noon in 24 hours as
you numbskulls believe -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

Maybe there are teachers who possibly would like to teach kids where
the 24 hour day comes from and how these 24 hour cycle elapse into
each other as Monday,Tuesday,ect.Maybe there are even those who can
take the next step and show how the average 24 hour day was overlaid
on the axial cycle by exploiting the difference between the 'average'
24 hour day and a 'constant' axial cycle.

I use the terms 'numbskulls and freaks' because there is nothing
remotely difficult in gauging the natural noon cycles are unequal even
though you people,rsadly representing the major institutions, believe
it is 24 hours exactly -

'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."

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html

Maybe you wish to compare that Nasa statement with that of Huygens -

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 Astronomy. "

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

What makes you believe the noon cycle is 24 hours exactly in order to
justify a false conception based on the return of a star to a location
which in turn generates this 'leap second' junk .Humanity needs to
hear how the idea of Monday,Tuesday ect came about and how these days
keep ticking into each other despite the fact that you crowd believe a
noon cycle is observed as 24 hours exactly -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

What was that about 'observational evidence', for all the doctorates
here who live off that principle ,make sure you get the basic
principle that the noon cycle are not 24 hours exactly before you
build concepts on it.

> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 03 Jul 2007 11:10:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Ethan O'Connor <ethan.ocon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:24 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > oriel36 wrote:
> > > (tell me what day a star does not return in 23 hours 56 minutes
> > > 04 seconds !!).
>
> > .
> > No such day ever dawned, of course! But you've just admitted that
> > Flamsteed was right: while the Sun doesn't return in *exactly* 24
> > hours, because of the Equation of Time (although only a small change
> > to that happens in a single day) stars do return regularly by our
> > clocks - and so they show that the Earth's rotation is regular, like
> > the motion of a clock!
>
> > John Savard
>
> Not only this, it is quite unclear to me what any of this is supposed
> to have to do with the neccessity of leap seconds! It doesn't matter
> if you choose sidereal or terrestrial time to refer to; the rotation
> of the earth in either case is irregular at a fine scale and slowing
> at a larger scale. In any case, you cannot accurately reproduce the SI
> second by measuring the rotation of the earth,

It has not stopped you freaks from believing that a location rotates
to noon in 24 hours exactly -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

There are too many numbskulls who can grasp the simple fact that a
location does not rotate to noon in 24 hours and that the natural days
are unequal hence the human devised principle of the Equation of Time
which creates the 24 hour day and subsequenly equable hours,minutes
and seconds.

Tell me this,how do you propose to explain the concept of the 86 400
seconds of Monday elapsing into the 86 400 seconds of Tuesday or do
you think the equable 24 hour day and clocks which aimed at the
Equation of Time principles just popped into existence oiut of
nowhere.

equation of time or no,
> and a leap second is required to keep any time scale which refers to
> noon, sidereal motion, or any other measure related to the rotation of
> the earth in synch with any time scale based on quantities believed to
> be constant and repeatable.
>
> Ethan O'Connor

You numbskulls believe that the noon cycle is 24 hours exactly in
order to justify the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.Your
disgraceful incompetence in thismatter is second only to the
incredible situation where the enjoyable Equation of Time principles.

Do you want to hear it from Huygens that a location does not rotate to
noon in 24 hours or rather that the 24 hour day is a human construct
which cannot be used to determine the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth -

"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. "

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Laep seconds are pretensious nonsense for people who know no better.

Date: 03 Jul 2007 18:41:03
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:10:13 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>It has not stopped you freaks from believing that a location rotates
>to noon in 24 hours exactly...
>
>There are too many numbskulls who can grasp the simple fact that a
>location does not rotate to noon in 24 hours...

So just to be clear about this, "freaks" believe that a location rotates
to noon in 24 hours, and "numbskulls" believe that a location does not
rotate to noon in 24 hours.

Which are you?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 03 Jul 2007 01:32:29
From: Ethan O'Connor
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 2, 4:24 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

> oriel36 wrote:
> > (tell me what day a star does not return in 23 hours 56 minutes
> > 04 seconds !!).
>
> .
> No such day ever dawned, of course! But you've just admitted that
> Flamsteed was right: while the Sun doesn't return in *exactly* 24
> hours, because of the Equation of Time (although only a small change
> to that happens in a single day) stars do return regularly by our
> clocks - and so they show that the Earth's rotation is regular, like
> the motion of a clock!
>
> John Savard

Not only this, it is quite unclear to me what any of this is supposed
to have to do with the neccessity of leap seconds! It doesn't matter
if you choose sidereal or terrestrial time to refer to; the rotation
of the earth in either case is irregular at a fine scale and slowing
at a larger scale. In any case, you cannot accurately reproduce the SI
second by measuring the rotation of the earth, equation of time or no,
and a leap second is required to keep any time scale which refers to
noon, sidereal motion, or any other measure related to the rotation of
the earth in synch with any time scale based on quantities believed to
be constant and repeatable.

Ethan O'Connor

Date: 02 Jul 2007 21:24:34
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 2, 10:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > You have provoked me beyond all endurance!
>
> > I have now added to my web page, at the location
>
> >http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> > a page explaining the Equation of Time as its causes are currently
> > understood by conventional astronomers.
>
> > Unfortunately, I have to *begin* explaining it with the "sidereal day"
> > you object to, because the cause of the days being unequal is that,
> > while the rotation of the Earth does not vary, it happens that the Sun
> > is not exactly (in the direction from the Earth) where you might
> > expect to find it in order to convert the sidereal rotation period of
> > 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds into the equal 24 hour day.
>
> > John Savard
>
> Thanks John.
> -Sam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

After enjoying the treatise of Huygens explaining how the unequal
daily noon cycle is converted to the human devised equable 24 hour
cycle and visa versa,it is something else to come across a dominant
pseudo-authority who believe that a locatioin rotates to noon in 24
hours exactly -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

It must be soimething else to have no self respect and especially as
the actual Equation of Time principles which create concepts such as
Monday,Tuesday ect and keep them rolling into each other are as
enjoyable as any human concept can be.

Why a parent would suffer their children to come under the influence
of people who are basically astrologers I do not know but I have yet
to see genuine intelligence applied in this matter even when the
observation that the daily noon cycle is unequal via Huygens -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Again,I would probably say that your kind disgrace themselves but it
seems you know no better

Date: 03 Jul 2007 05:01:11
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:24:34 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com >
wrote, in part:

>After enjoying the treatise of Huygens explaining how the unequal
>daily noon cycle is converted to the human devised equable 24 hour
>cycle and visa versa,it is something else to come across a dominant
>pseudo-authority who believe that a locatioin rotates to noon in 24
>hours exactly -

Well, on my web site at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

I am very careful to avoid such errors and oversimplifications.

But while there are errors and oversimplifications on many web sites,
and in many standard reference works, concerning the motions of the
Earth in the heavens, it does not seem to me that they are truly the
source of the objections you are making.

Instead, I am afraid that the impression you give is that your
disagreement is based on the following premise:

Time is what you get from a sundial, not what comes from a mechanical
clock. Thus, the mistake of Flamsteed and Newton is that they put the
time from mechanical clocks first, not necessarily that they got the
wrong answers.

So, when Flamsteed referred to the Earth's axial rotation as
"isochronous" because the return of a star happened every 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds by a mechanical clock, he by implication termed
the Earth's natural time cycle as deficient, and praised mechanical
clocks as superior to the Sun.

Huyghens, in his explanation of the Equation of Time, made no such
mistake: he clearly explains it as a correction to the approximate time
indicated by a mechanical clock, to enable one to obtain the real time.

This is a premise that will not be accepted by astronomers. Newton did
successfully show that the heavens *can* be understood by the laws which
govern moving bodies on the Earth. So we start with simple regular time
in order to disentangle the behavior of natural physical systems.

After all, for example, the orbit of Mars is more strongly elliptical
than that of the Earth, and its relation to the direction of the tilt of
Mars' polar axis also differs, so a different Equation of Time would
apply to Martian sundials. While nobody lives on Mars yet, it is already
apparent that there is no reason to pick Earth's sundial time instead of
Mars' sundial time - and every reason to use regular clock time as a
starting point to understand the Universe.

And there seems to be a second premise too, I'm afraid. Since you
apparently don't understand calculus and other advanced mathematics, you
seem to have concluded that when scientists do use these things, they're
just engaging in a con job. Well, I'm sorry, but they *do* know what
they're doing.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 03 Jul 2007 11:59:55
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid > wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:24:34 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >After enjoying the treatise of Huygens explaining how the unequal
> >daily noon cycle is converted to the human devised equable 24 hour
> >cycle and visa versa,it is something else to come across a dominant
> >pseudo-authority who believe that a locatioin rotates to noon in 24
> >hours exactly -
>
> Well, on my web site at
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> I am very careful to avoid such errors and oversimplifications.
>
> But while there are errors and oversimplifications on many web sites,
> and in many standard reference works, concerning the motions of the
> Earth in the heavens, it does not seem to me that they are truly the
> source of the objections you are making.
>
> Instead, I am afraid that the impression you give is that your
> disagreement is based on the following premise:
>
> Time is what you get from a sundial, not what comes from a mechanical
> clock. Thus, the mistake of Flamsteed and Newton is that they put the
> time from mechanical clocks first, not necessarily that they got the
> wrong answers.
>
> So, when Flamsteed referred to the Earth's axial rotation as
> "isochronous" because the return of a star happened every 23 hours, 56
> minutes, and 4 seconds by a mechanical clock, he by implication termed
> the Earth's natural time cycle as deficient, and praised mechanical
> clocks as superior to the Sun.
>
> Huyghens, in his explanation of the Equation of Time, made no such
> mistake: he clearly explains it as a correction to the approximate time
> indicated by a mechanical clock, to enable one to obtain the real time.
>
> This is a premise that will not be accepted by astronomers. Newton did
> successfully show that the heavens *can* be understood by the laws which
> govern moving bodies on the Earth. So we start with simple regular time
> in order to disentangle the behavior of natural physical systems.

And conversely of course: to Newton true time
was the time scale in which Newton's equations hold true,

Jan

Date: 03 Jul 2007 11:16:30
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:59:55 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote, in part:
> John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:

> > This is a premise that will not be accepted by astronomers. Newton did
> > successfully show that the heavens *can* be understood by the laws which
> > govern moving bodies on the Earth. So we start with simple regular time
> > in order to disentangle the behavior of natural physical systems.

> And conversely of course: to Newton true time
> was the time scale in which Newton's equations hold true,

Indeed. But this was not a circular definition, because this time scale,
as given by mechanical clocks, already existed.

We cannot, of course, change or control time (aside from time dilation,
of course); but we can, legitimately, choose which time scale is useful
or interesting to us. We live in a mechanized society; this may be
deplored for some reasons, but that has meant that for us the most
practical time scale is the one in which the uniform rotations of our
turbines and dynamos are most naturally measured.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 07 Jul 2007 10:52:39
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Date: 04 Jul 2007 09:28:49
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid > wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:59:55 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote, in part:
> > John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > This is a premise that will not be accepted by astronomers. Newton did
> > > successfully show that the heavens *can* be understood by the laws which
> > > govern moving bodies on the Earth. So we start with simple regular time
> > > in order to disentangle the behavior of natural physical systems.
>
> > And conversely of course: to Newton true time
> > was the time scale in which Newton's equations hold true,
>
> Indeed. But this was not a circular definition, because this time scale,
> as given by mechanical clocks, already existed.

Ah, a true naive empirist.
The existence of clocks was in principle irrelevant for Newton.
As it is to us who have taken over Newtons viewpoint,
with 'Newton's laws' replaced by 'the laws of physics'.

Pendulum clocks (and atomic clocks too)
can't indicate true time by themselves.
Many corrections must be applied
in order to interpret their readings properly.
Which corrections are the 'right' ones
follows of course from Newton's insight.

> We cannot, of course, change or control time (aside from time dilation,
> of course); but we can, legitimately, choose which time scale is useful
> or interesting to us.

We can of course choose any time scale,
but we should recognize that on favored time scale exists,
viz the one in which the laws of physics take their simplest form.
And that is precisely where our dear troll fails.

> We live in a mechanized society; this may be
> deplored for some reasons, but that has meant that for us the most
> practical time scale is the one in which the uniform rotations of our
> turbines and dynamos are most naturally measured.

That's it, but restricting oneself to turbines etc
is a bit limited.

Jan

Date: 03 Jul 2007 11:44:16
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid > wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:24:34 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >After enjoying the treatise of Huygens explaining how the unequal
> >daily noon cycle is converted to the human devised equable 24 hour
> >cycle and visa versa,it is something else to come across a dominant
> >pseudo-authority who believe that a locatioin rotates to noon in 24
> >hours exactly -
>
> Well, on my web site at
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> I am very careful to avoid such errors and oversimplifications.
>
> But while there are errors and oversimplifications on many web sites,
> and in many standard reference works, concerning the motions of the
> Earth in the heavens, it does not seem to me that they are truly the
> source of the objections you are making.
>
> Instead, I am afraid that the impression you give is that your
> disagreement is based on the following premise:
>
> Time is what you get from a sundial, not what comes from a mechanical
> clock. Thus, the mistake of Flamsteed and Newton is that they put the
> time from mechanical clocks first, not necessarily that they got the
> wrong answers.
>
> So, when Flamsteed referred to the Earth's axial rotation as
> "isochronous" because the return of a star happened every 23 hours, 56
> minutes, and 4 seconds by a mechanical clock, he by implication termed
> the Earth's natural time cycle as deficient, and praised mechanical
> clocks as superior to the Sun.
>
> Huyghens, in his explanation of the Equation of Time, made no such
> mistake: he clearly explains it as a correction to the approximate time
> indicated by a mechanical clock, to enable one to obtain the real time.

For your amusement: Shortly after all this the differential
was invented (like you still have in your car)
Some 18th century clocks had differential gears
to subtract/add the time correction, and two minute hands.
One indicating the true clock time, the other solar time.

Lacking time standards in those days
the solar hand was useful for setting the clock
to sundials or noon guns.

Even our troll should like to have one,

Jan

Date: 02 Jul 2007 18:13:32
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
.
> > I have now added to my web page, at the location
.
> > http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
.
> > a page explaining the Equation of Time as its causes are currently
> > understood by conventional astronomers.
.
> Thanks John.
.
I'm glad you enjoyed my page! I've just updated it slightly, improving
the illustration of how the Earth's elliptical orbit comes in.

John Savard

Date: 03 Jul 2007 03:12:41
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:13:32 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote,
in part:
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:

>> > I have now added to my web page, at the location

>> > http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

>> > a page explaining the Equation of Time as its causes are currently
>> > understood by conventional astronomers.

>> Thanks John.

>I'm glad you enjoyed my page! I've just updated it slightly, improving
>the illustration of how the Earth's elliptical orbit comes in.

And now I added one more illustration, comparing the conventional
diagram of the Earth's tilt and the seasons with the tilted version from
which one can see that the Earth's orbit is foreshortened when looking
at it from the standpoint of the Earth's axis.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 02 Jul 2007 13:17:44
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> The responsibility of teachers is to teach children where the concept
> of Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday ect comes from insofar as each of these
> days is constructed of 24 equable hour,1440 equable minutes or 86 400
> seconds.These things are so fundamental to human existence that most
> people tend to ignore that the creation of the 24 hour day and how
> they elapse seamlessly into each other was created by brilliant men
> out of the daily cycle determined at noon.This is even before the
> teacher gets to show how the 'average' 24 hour day was transfered to
> the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes as an inviolate 24 hour/360
> degree correlation when axial rotation was discovered as a principle.
>
> I have spoken often enough with incredulity of people who do not
> recognise that the daily cycle is unequal (hence the Equation of Time)
> and believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly even
> when people like Christian Huygen's treatise explicitly shows the
> difference between the natural unequal cycle and the human devised 24
> hour cycle. -
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> If you live by 'oservational evidence' then so shall your concepts
> fall by it,in this case the belief that a location rotates to noon in
> 24 hours -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> In truth,it is always going to be about genuine people who can become
> familiar with the Equation of Time correction which reduces the
> unequal noon cycle to an equable 24 hour cycle and educate children in
> the enjoyable principles which keeps these days ticking over into each
> other.I look at your unintelligent 24 hours/361 degrees as nothing but
> a bad era for humanity and astronomy and it is about time others spoke
> out on this very important matter.
.
Well, you've finally done it.

You have provoked me beyond all endurance!

I have now added to my web page, at the location

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

a page explaining the Equation of Time as its causes are currently
understood by conventional astronomers.

Unfortunately, I have to *begin* explaining it with the "sidereal day"
you object to, because the cause of the days being unequal is that,
while the rotation of the Earth does not vary, it happens that the Sun
is not exactly (in the direction from the Earth) where you might
expect to find it in order to convert the sidereal rotation period of
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds into the equal 24 hour day.

John Savard

Date: 02 Jul 2007 20:36:56
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

Quadibloc wrote:

>
> You have provoked me beyond all endurance!
>
> I have now added to my web page, at the location
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> a page explaining the Equation of Time as its causes are currently
> understood by conventional astronomers.
>
> Unfortunately, I have to *begin* explaining it with the "sidereal day"
> you object to, because the cause of the days being unequal is that,
> while the rotation of the Earth does not vary, it happens that the Sun
> is not exactly (in the direction from the Earth) where you might
> expect to find it in order to convert the sidereal rotation period of
> 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds into the equal 24 hour day.
>
> John Savard
>

Thanks John.
-Sam

Date: 13 Jul 2007 20:58:21
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Tommorrow is just another working day for me as it is for many here,it
begins early and ends late notwithstanding the enormous responsibility
that follows in undoing the damage to astronomy in the name of lazy
and incompetent creatures.

Children ,at least teenagers, can now understand how the 24 hour day
is created from the observation that the natural noon cycle is
unequal,how men equalised it to a 24 hour day and how each of these
24 hour cycles elapse into the next 24 hour cycle.

Teenagers can then approach the topic of how accurate clocks were
invented to maintain the standard pace of the 24 hour cycle for long
periods as a means to determine terrestrial longitudes.By exploiting
the Equation of Time principles which create the 24 hour
cycle,brilliant minds transfered the average 24 hour cycle to the
axial cycle and treated it as a constant,the facility which allowed
one 24 hour day to elapse into the next 24 hour day keeps clocks in
sync with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees where 4 minutes of
clock time represent 1 degree of geographical seperation making 24
hours span the globe.

Astronomy needs heroes and they will come from genuine and good
people,particularly teachers, who have enough intelligence to
appreciate how the 24 hour day was created from observing the
inequalities in the natural noon cycles over an annual cycle and when
Copernicus discovered the axial cycle,how the old Equation of Time
principles were overlaid on terrestrial geography as a 24 hour/360
degree correlation.

That nonsense of believing that the natural noon cycle is 24 hours
in order to use the return of a star to justify the motions of the
Earth is for unintelligent people -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

Some day kids will not have to suffer 'sidereal time' rubbish just
because of the pretension of mathematicians who have no feel for
astronomy,its methods and its insights or people will eventually see
just how eaily understandable structural and timekeeping astronomy
actually is.I have done my part now it is time for others to come off
the fence.

Some day kids will not have to suff

On Jul 12, 10:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > As long as your cult ties the difference between axial rotation to a
> > distant star and then towards the Sun you will always be forced into
> > the most techincally and astronomically incompetent view
> > possible ,that the noon cycles are exactly 24 hours.
>
> 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!
>
> 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: 10 Jul 2007 16:31:58
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Nice argument .... now, lemme guess that you are, or have been, a lawyer
> by profession...... ;-)

No, my education was of a scientific nature.

But I see your point - that I am trying to quibble here, and really
cheated on your conditions. Perhaps. But I figure that showing kids a
Walt Disney-style educational movie about the fact there is such a
*thing* as quantum mechanics is not the same as actually teaching them
to grapple with the Schrodinger Equation or even Clebsh-Gordan
symbols.

> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

As I was thinking of also adding the Equation of Time to my page *as
an equation*, I may get into competition with part of your page! (But
not quite; your page is the kind of informative resource my pages are
a bit too strangely personal to be.)

John Savard

Date: 10 Jul 2007 07:09:24
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> The gate to understanding the great astronomical insights is opened by
> the generosity of the human heart in respecting the achievements,and
> sometimes the failures,of our ancestors..
.
In this connection, it might be noted that I have just added to my
page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

an additional illustration showing that, since when drawn to scale, a
circle representing the Earth's orbit around the Sun is a circle to
one part in 7000, but the distance of the Sun from the center was
large enough to depict, I drew my illustration of the working out of
Kepler's Laws using a first-order approximation that would be fully
accurate on that scale, rather than write a program to calculate the
orbit...

and the technique I used was uniform motion viewed from the "equant"
on a "deferent", taken straight from good old Ptolemy.

John Savard

Date: 10 Jul 2007 05:00:33
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <1183982713.004648.123910@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:

> >> "Centrifugal forces don't exist!" (high school physics teacher)
>
> > Well, that is true, in a manner of speaking. Looked at from outside
> > the rotating system, to make something go around in a circle, you have
> > to pull it from its natural straight-line motion; what it "feels" is
> > its inertial resistance to your "upwards" pull, and the "downwards"
> > centrifugal force is a fictitious force.
>
> > Of course, the Principle of Equivalence in General Relativity can give
> > us another way of looking at things, in which even non-inertial frames
> > are of equal dignity, so that the distinction between the real force
> > of gravity and the fictitious inertial forces is moot.
>
> So then we can conclude that "Gravity doesn't exist!" ??? From that
> point of view, gravity is as "nonexistent" as the centrifugal force.
.
Ah, but we begin with gravity being real, and from the viewpoint
without general relativity, centrifugal force is clearly distinct; it
is felt because a body moving in a circle needs constant acceleration;
it violates Newton's Laws.

General Relativity merely obscures the distinction between the two
cases, so this elevates the dignity of the ficticious forces. Gravity
still has mass as its obvious cause in both systems.

> > Of course, leaving out GR, SR, and QM is something I can hardly call
> > lying, so tiny and remote they are.
>
> How and why does a transistor work?
>
> Nowadays, a lot of people usually carry millions of transistors with
> them almost all the time, so they're hardly remote. So please explain
> - without using QM, and of course without lying.... ;-)

Let us say we have a system in which a great deal of water must flow
through a grating, but this water carries with it small amounts of
impurities which will not go through the grating. In that case, after
the impurities build up and block the grating, it is much easier to
take the obstruction out of the way than it is to carry the large
quantity of water from the one place to another by other means.

In an NPN transistor connected in the "common emitter" arrangement, a
small current allowed to flow out of the base of the transistor acts
like the removal of twigs and leaves piled up against a grating,
allowing current to flow from the collector to the emitter - or
electrons to flow from the emitter to the collector.

It would take quantum mechanics to explain the reasons why the
different elements behave the way they do, leading to the Periodic
Table of Elements, also known as the roundaround board of the
firststuffs. But to see how a transistor works, we do not need to go
into all the details.

In the atom, a certain number of positive particles called protons are
in the center, or nucleus. They are usually accompanied by neutrons,
except in the element with only one proton in the center; these have
no charge, but help to provide a nuclear force which holds the nucleus
together in the face of the repelling like positive charges of the
proton.

Orbiting the nucleus there are electrons, attracted to the nucleus by
opposing electrical charges like planets are attracted to the sun by
gravity. But quantum mechanics, again, makes the picture more
complicated. Only the consequences need concern us here.

While an atom contains equal numbers of protons and electrons, there
is a weaker force which leads to the last few electrons on an atom on
the left side of the periodic table being less strongly bound, and
which leads to atoms on the right side of the periodic table feeling a
need for more electrons. But this effect (called the van der Waals
force) is smaller than the electrostatic force which demands the
number of electrons equal the number of protons.

Thus, we get such things as the salt molecule. A sodium atom, with a
weakly bound last electron, gets together with a chlorine atom, which
feels a need for an extra electron, and partly shares that last
electron with the chlorine atom. Because the two stay close together,
the molecule is not ionized; electrostatic force is satisfied,
positive and negative charges stay balanced, but the last electron can
edge a bit closer to the chlorine atom, minimizing the combined
potential due to the van der Waals force and the electrostatic force.

In a semiconductor, we have an element like silicon, with four out of
eight electrons in its outermost shell; that is, it is in the middle
of the periodic table; unlike an inert gas, it is not satisfied with
its configuration, but it could accept four electrons, or give four
electrons, with equal benefit. (This is an approximation; we have
quartz, with oxygen atoms linking silicon atoms, but diamond, with
carbon atoms linked directly, and fluorine is more violent than
chlorine, but lithium less violent than sodium, because the size of an
atom as it grows tilts things towards giving electrons away as well.)

To make the N-type region of a transistor, we add small quantities of
an element willing to give away an electron, such as gallium, and to
make the P-type region of a transistor, we add small quantities of an
element feeling the need for an electron, such as arsenic.

Metals, which are elements willing to give away electrons, can also
coalesce in a crystal where the extra electrons freely move about with
independence from the individual atoms, and these conduct electricity
as well. Adding even a small amount of gallium to silicon makes it a
better conductor.

While a chunk of sulfur, on the other hand, for example, is no
conductor of electricity, because its atoms tend to join in small
molecules, a small amount of arsenic in a silicon matrix behaves like
the inverse of a metal, where "holes", absences of an electron, move
about freely, carrying positive charge. The silicon imposes a metal-
like structure, so the P-type dopant conforms to that structure,
leading to an inverse model of metal-like structure.

When an N-type region and a P-type region are two parts of the same
chunk of silicon, so they are intimately connected, both parts conduct
electricity, but at the barrier between them, electrons can easily
flow from the N-type region to meet holes from the P-type region and
cancel out with them. But this boundary is not a good place to expect
electrons to come from into the N-type region and holes to come from
into the P-type region.

So you can make a diode. The metal wires merely clamped on to the
outside of the semiconductor are connected less intimately, so an
unending replenishment of electrons or holes is possible from them.

An NPN transistor is made like this: a chunk of silicon is mostly N-
type, doped with gallium. But that N-type area is divided into two
parts by a very thin layer doped with arsenic, being P-type.

Electrons can flow from one N-type area (the emitter) to the other N-
type area (the collector) with reasonable ease, but a few get stuck in
the wrong-way diode path from the P-type area in the middle (the base)
to the collector. Those that get stuck lead to a positive charge on
the collector side and a negative charge on the emitter side, blocking
the flow of electrons through the transistor.

But just allow some electrons to drain out of this area, by applying a
tiny positive signal to the base, and the large flow of electrons from
emitter to collector once again surges through! Hence, the transistor
amplifies.

I *allude* to quantum mechanics to avoid lying, but I do not *use* it;
I do not use Schrodinger's Equation, or go through the p-type and d-
type and s-type orbitals and exhibit their shapes as solutions to a
differential equation.

John Savard

Date: 10 Jul 2007 22:12:45
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

In article <1184068833.041316.105970@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

.......................

> I *allude* to quantum mechanics to avoid lying, but I do not *use* it;
> I do not use Schrodinger's Equation, or go through the p-type and d-
> type and s-type orbitals and exhibit their shapes as solutions to a
> differential equation.

Nice argument .... now, lemme guess that you are, or have been, a lawyer
by profession...... ;-)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 09 Jul 2007 08:54:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 9, 2:05 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Education consists in telling half-truths (or even outright lies)
> > to avoid complicating things too much for the pupil.
> > In the next stage a fuller version of the truth may be told.
> > And so on.
>
> .
> That is a form of laziness that abuses the trust that should exist
> between student and teacher, and often leads to students abandoning
> the enterprise in disgust. A simple form of the truth can be shown
> without having to pretend the rest is not there.
>

Let me show you the face of a child caught up in an awful ideology -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1okbQm4deQ&mode=related&search=

When a human descends into a senseless ideology that promotes
superiority at the expense of the rest of humanity,and your
pretensious empirical ideologies do that, by twisting exquisite and
intricate astronomical insights into a horrible wordplay and an
astrological geometry the results are predictable.

It is easier to show that hymn as the flux of the sea,the daily cycle
of the Earth,children at play,a choir singing out in harmony,the joys
of music and astronomy was once a vibrant part of it all and it will
be so again -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxqylxfYyQM&mode=related&search=

> > "Centrifugal forces don't exist!" (high school physics teacher)
>
> .
> Well, that is true, in a manner of speaking. Looked at from outside
> the rotating system, to make something go around in a circle, you have
> to pull it from its natural straight-line motion; what it "feels" is
> its inertial resistance to your "upwards" pull, and the "downwards"
> centrifugal force is a fictitious force.
>
> Of course, the Principle of Equivalence in General Relativity can give
> us another way of looking at things, in which even non-inertial frames
> are of equal dignity, so that the distinction between the real force
> of gravity and the fictitious inertial forces is moot.
>
> Of course, leaving out GR, SR, and QM is something I can hardly call
> lying, so tiny and remote they are.
>
> John Savard

Date: 09 Jul 2007 07:42:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 9, 10:58 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 11:53 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > No one but you has said that
> > > > a "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> > .
> > > Living with the knowledge that an entire group of people would
> > > willingly believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly
> > > in order to justify a 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value is an
> > > experience that I woiuld not wish on another individual.
> > .
> > To be fair, you have shown us some examples of web sites and other
> > sources that explain the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second axial rotation
> > of the Earth by starting with statements that imply that a solar day
> > is always 24 hours exactly.
>
> > This, however, is simply an error, or an oversimplification to delay
> > explaining the Equation of Time until later. Astronomers do not claim
> > the solar day is 24 hours exactly, and any textbook on positional
> > astronomy, for example, will show you that the Equation of Time is
> > still understood by those who are called astronomers!
>
> Education consists in telling half-truths (or even outright lies)
> to avoid complicating things too much for the pupil.
> In the next stage a fuller version of the truth may be told.
> And so on.
>

That particular idiotic concept involving the Sun,the distant stars
and axial rotation all wrapped in the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds is the basis of this 'leap second 'thread -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

As long as your cult ties the difference between axial rotation to a
distant star and then towards the Sun you will always be forced into
the most techincally and astronomically incompetent view
possible ,that the noon cycles are exactly 24 hours.

> The trouble with our troll seems to be that he remained stuck
> in an early stage of the process, and refuses to learn more.
>
> Best,
>
> Jan
>

There is no learning in any of this,it is all about familiarity and
the wisdom to grasp the astronomical experiences that make existence
possible.To actually go against such things as the observed unequal
noon cycle,known since antiquity,takes an effort whereas familiarity
with the difference between the natural noon cycle and the 24 hour
cycle via the Equation of Time correction is easy to understand and
becomes easier with experience.

You did not like the wonderful Christian hymn which shows how easy it
is to mesh the great astronomical cycles with human creations such as
music.No pretension involved,just a wonderful sense of the of the
cycles which changes darkness to light ,summer to winter and visa
versa. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxqylxfYyQM

There you will find astronomers,people who take joy in participating
in existence and showing how brilliant men matched those great cycles
by creating ingenious things such as the 24 hour day and how they
elapse into each other.

There are no Christians here either,just hopeless astrologers and
their 'sidereal time' indoctrination

> "Centrifugal forces don't exist!" (high school physics teacher)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:26:15
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

oriel36 wrote:

>
> As long as your cult ties the difference between axial rotation to a
> distant star and then towards the Sun you will always be forced into
> the most techincally and astronomically incompetent view
> possible ,that the noon cycles are exactly 24 hours.
>

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!

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: 13 Jul 2007 00:32:50
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote:

> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth's Revolution (orbital velocity)
> aberration of light
> stellar radial velocities (Doppler)
> parallax of nearby stars
> Gravitation

More fundamental these days: apparent yearly changes in the observed
cosmic black body temperature.
(or equivalently: a yearly modulation of our velocity
with respect to it)

> Evidence ("proof") of the Earth Rotation (angular velocity)
> Doppler measurements of stars
> Foucault Pendulum
> Coriolis forces

The Coriolis force causes the pendulum to rotate.
So it also went historically: Coriolis derived his force,
and Foucault started wondering if it would be possible
to demonstrate the existence Coriolis' forces experimentally.

That Foucaults' pendulum 'proved' the rotation of the earth
was a later idea.

After all, who needed proof?

Jan

Date: 12 Jul 2007 19:32:25
From: MacArthur
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:G7wli.9374$Xa3.497@attbi_s22...
> oriel36 wrote:
>
>>
>> As long as your cult ties the difference between axial rotation to a
>> distant star and then towards the Sun you will always be forced into
>> the most techincally and astronomically incompetent view
>> possible ,that the noon cycles are exactly 24 hours.
>>
>
> 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!
>
>
> 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
>

Thanks Sam,

This thread ended up having more heat than light; until now.

I enjoy your info posts, and other contributions.

--
Live strong and have a nice day, - "Nil carborundum illegitimi"!
Mac H E L P the planet - Don't I D L E ! ! !
Over 1600 Links at Http://MacArthur.Funknstyle.Com
Pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/macarthur

Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:05:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Education consists in telling half-truths (or even outright lies)
> to avoid complicating things too much for the pupil.
> In the next stage a fuller version of the truth may be told.
> And so on.
.
That is a form of laziness that abuses the trust that should exist
between student and teacher, and often leads to students abandoning
the enterprise in disgust. A simple form of the truth can be shown
without having to pretend the rest is not there.

> "Centrifugal forces don't exist!" (high school physics teacher)
.
Well, that is true, in a manner of speaking. Looked at from outside
the rotating system, to make something go around in a circle, you have
to pull it from its natural straight-line motion; what it "feels" is
its inertial resistance to your "upwards" pull, and the "downwards"
centrifugal force is a fictitious force.

Of course, the Principle of Equivalence in General Relativity can give
us another way of looking at things, in which even non-inertial frames
are of equal dignity, so that the distinction between the real force
of gravity and the fictitious inertial forces is moot.

Of course, leaving out GR, SR, and QM is something I can hardly call
lying, so tiny and remote they are.

John Savard

Date: 10 Jul 2007 08:12:37
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

In article <1183982713.004648.123910@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Education consists in telling half-truths (or even outright lies)
>> to avoid complicating things too much for the pupil.
>> In the next stage a fuller version of the truth may be told.
>> And so on.
>.
> That is a form of laziness that abuses the trust that should exist
> between student and teacher, and often leads to students abandoning
> the enterprise in disgust. A simple form of the truth can be shown
> without having to pretend the rest is not there.
>
>> "Centrifugal forces don't exist!" (high school physics teacher)
>.
> Well, that is true, in a manner of speaking. Looked at from outside
> the rotating system, to make something go around in a circle, you have
> to pull it from its natural straight-line motion; what it "feels" is
> its inertial resistance to your "upwards" pull, and the "downwards"
> centrifugal force is a fictitious force.
>
> Of course, the Principle of Equivalence in General Relativity can give
> us another way of looking at things, in which even non-inertial frames
> are of equal dignity, so that the distinction between the real force
> of gravity and the fictitious inertial forces is moot.

So then we can conclude that "Gravity doesn't exist!" ??? From that
point of view, gravity is as "nonexistent" as the centrifugal force.

> Of course, leaving out GR, SR, and QM is something I can hardly call
> lying, so tiny and remote they are.

How and why does a transistor work?

Nowadays, a lot of people usually carry millions of transistors with
them almost all the time, so they're hardly remote. So please explain
- without using QM, and of course without lying.... ;-)

> John Savard

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 08 Jul 2007 13:01:21
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> It sometimes happens that great minds come back to simple things and
> set aside the pretension that attaches itself to existence. Oscar
> Wilde knew it and expressed it in a lovely way known to all Christians
.
While he eventually fell victim to a certain wrongheadedness in the
name of Christianity, that is not relevant.

> "Like all poetical natures he loved ignorant people. He knew that in
> the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea.
> But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made
> stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which
> they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by Christ
> when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge,
> cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it,
> though it may be made to open the gate of God's Kingdom.."
.
To be simple due to ignorance is not blameworthy; those who are
ignorant but fail to realize it are the ones who are annoyingly
stupid. Having an incomplete education is definitely a way to convince
oneself that one is not ignorant.

But it is actually quite difficult for people educated in mathematics
or the physical sciences to get into this kind of condition. That is
because these are not subjects learned by rote memorization. One has
to understand the concepts for oneself in order to do practical work
with them.

Scientists get their hands dirty in the laboratory; so, today, it
would be as hard to teach a false theory of science on the basis of
authority as it would be to try and teach wrong ideas in schools of
carpentry. That which is not the truth will fall down in practice.

Copernicus and Huyghens are respected and honored today among
astronomers. But Flamsteed and Newton are also honored as well; by
taking the step you criticize, putting the uniform time of the
mechanical clock first as the true standard of time, and relegating
the solar time of the sundial to the status of a local peculiarity of
the Earth's particular scheme of motion, contrary to what was *then*
everyday experience (though fitting well to today's experience) they
opened a door through which scientists had to pass in order to further
their understanding of the Universe.

In fact, even Ptolemy used the Equation of Time to go *from* sundial
time *to* uniform time because uniform time was needed to account for
the motions of the Moon. Today, we live by clock time, so we don't
have to involve sundial time. If we are interested in the subject of
solar time, we will go from uniform time to solar time.

And this is why, when some astronomers explain why stars return after
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, they go straight from the length
of the year and the average 24 hour length of the day to obtain the
length of that period - without pausing to mention, because it is a
separate topic, the Equation of Time. They oversimplify to avoid
seeming pedantic; they do not mean to decieve or confuse. But other
astronomers will be careful enough to give a passing mention to this
detail.

John Savard

Date: 02 Jul 2007 11:45:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 2, 12:38 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
> >>> The intricate details behind the 24 hour/360 degree correlation which
> >>> links clocks to the axial cycle can now be fully appreciated by those
> >>> who make the small effort to see how it is done -
> >> You mean 24h/361=B0 correlation (approximately)!
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> > The idea that a location rotates to noon in exactly 24 hours in order
> > to justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth to a star is
> > false.It is the only fact that counts whether people deal with the
> > matter or not.
>
> > The additional information linking clocks to the axial cycle and
> > terrestrial longitudes via the Equation of Time correction and the 24
> > hour/360 degree correlation is now here for all to enjoy -
>
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> > The opportunity to set things right is there for any individual who
> > finds himself/herself on the right side of the argument,in this case
> > the observation that the duration of the noon cycles are unequal as
> > opposed to the false 'sidereal time' view that they are equal.
>
> > Global climate and the motions of the Earth are linked in an intimate
> > way and I assure you that working with the correct dynamical
> > principles of axial/orbital motions alters the way global climate and
> > the seasons are approached as people will soon discover.
>
> > So Sam,I appreciate that you normally do not respond to threads and
> > yet you are left to try and make an argument for the guys in this
> > forum who have conveniently disappeared and even if your
> > creationistlike attitude to the daily cycle is unintelligent,at least
> > you are trying.As I have little regard for your 'sidereal time'
> > dynamics for the motion of the Earth it remains only to express a
> > little sadness for sheer loss of human effort before turning to the
> > matter of recovering heliocentricity and the principles which keep
> > clocks in sync with the axial cycle as 24 hours/360 degrees.
>
> > It is somebody else's turn now.
>
> I was cleaning up/out my killfile... when you reappeared. It probably
> won't take me long to put you back in there. But I thought we might bo=
th
> enjoy trying to find common ground first.
>
> o note that the earth roration rate varies slightly
> o sidereal day =3D 360=B0
> o solar day =3D 361=B0 approximately as the earth progresses about 1=
=B0 in
> its orbit wrt the sun. See:http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/H_=
A_Rey-orbit.gif- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The responsibility of teachers is to teach children where the concept
of Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday ect comes from insofar as each of these
days is constructed of 24 equable hour,1440 equable minutes or 86 400
seconds.These things are so fundamental to human existence that most
people tend to ignore that the creation of the 24 hour day and how
they elapse seamlessly into each other was created by brilliant men
out of the daily cycle determined at noon.This is even before the
teacher gets to show how the 'average' 24 hour day was transfered to
the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes as an inviolate 24 hour/360
degree correlation when axial rotation was discovered as a principle.

I have spoken often enough with incredulity of people who do not
recognise that the daily cycle is unequal (hence the Equation of Time)
and believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly even
when people like Christian Huygen's treatise explicitly shows the
difference between the natural unequal cycle and the human devised 24
hour cycle. -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

If you live by 'oservational evidence' then so shall your concepts
fall by it,in this case the belief that a location rotates to noon in
24 hours -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

In truth,it is always going to be about genuine people who can become
familiar with the Equation of Time correction which reduces the
unequal noon cycle to an equable 24 hour cycle and educate children in
the enjoyable principles which keeps these days ticking over into each
other.I look at your unintelligent 24 hours/361 degrees as nothing but
a bad era for humanity and astronomy and it is about time others spoke
out on this very important matter.

Date: 10 Jul 2007 13:59:57
From: Rozagy
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 9, 3:17?pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 12:55 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > Because the Earth advanced around the Sun by a degree, however, after
> > 24 hours it is *not* the same sidereal time as it was 24 hours ago; by
> > that clock, it is about one degree in angle, or four minutes of time,
> > later. So the sidereal time repeated itself four minutes ago.
>
> This has all been explained to Oriel ad nauseum, by many different
> people (myself included). But he is not interested in the truth, he
> is interested in feeding hsAsperger'sSyndrome.
>
> Ultimately, he can't bring himself to face the fact that *either* an
> earth rotation, with respect to the stars, happens every 23 hours, 56
> minutes, and 4.xx seconds, *or* the entire universe revolves around
> the solar system once a year, and that there *is no other solution*.
>
> Austin

How on Earth are you supposed to "feed" your Asperger's syndrome?

Am I sensing a hint of derogatory attitude here?
Are you jsimply ealous of super-intelligent people with Asperger's?
Isn't it a totally useless thing to do?
Wouldn't you be better off raising your self-esteem by some other
means than putting someone down on the basis of their disability?

How ignorant some people are ... Think before you write. Or better -
get educated on Asperger's!

Roza
(treat 'em as I find 'em)

Date: 08 Jul 2007 13:15:33
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

How many of your kind tried to disturb the simple faith of people by
proposing yourselves as authorities in astronomical affairs while
failing in even the most basic principles.

I think you need to hear the sweet music which carries people through
dark episodes in human history such as this one where a once vibrant
astronomical heritage withered in the hands of dull men -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxqylxfYyQM

It sometimes happens that great minds come back to simple things and
set aside the pretension that attaches itself to existence .Oscar
Wilde knew it and expressed it in a lovely way known to all Christians
-

I"Like all poetical natures he loved ignorant people. He knew that in
the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea.
But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made
stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which
they even understand, a peculiarly modern type,summed up by Christ
when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge,
cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it,
though it may be made to open the gate of God's Kingdom.." Oscar
Wilde

The gate to understanding the great astronomical insights is opened by
the generosity of the human heart in respecting the achievements,and
sometimes the failures,of our ancestors.. 'Abide With Me' is as much
an invitation to a level of understanding which produced the great
timekeeping and structural astronomy as it is to the great Christian
sentiments or anywhere the endeavors of men take them.

On Jul 8, 6:56 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 11:53 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > No one but you has said that
> > > a "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> .
> > Living with the knowledge that an entire group of people would
> > willingly believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly
> > in order to justify a 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value is an
> > experience that I woiuld not wish on another individual.
>
> .
> To be fair, you have shown us some examples of web sites and other
> sources that explain the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second axial rotation
> of the Earth by starting with statements that imply that a solar day
> is always 24 hours exactly.
>
> This, however, is simply an error, or an oversimplification to delay
> explaining the Equation of Time until later. Astronomers do not claim
> the solar day is 24 hours exactly, and any textbook on positional
> astronomy, for example, will show you that the Equation of Time is
> still understood by those who are called astronomers!
>
> > To think that
> > any person would vandalise an exquisite set of principles such as the
> > 'Equation of Time' that renders the equable 24 hour day cycle from the
> > inequalities of the natural noon cycle would be unimaginable yet that
> > is eaxactly what you do -
> .
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> .
> This is one of those examples. It should have been "mean solar day"
> and "sidereal day", not "solar day" and "mean sidereal day".
>
> You have made typographical errors in your posts too. Don't judge the
> astronomical community by a typo!
>
> > It is not your ignorance and those like you that concerns me but
> > rather the lack of courage in those who should know better .
>
> .
> There's nothing for them to be courageous about, because the official
> astronomical community has _not_ got it wrong! Millions of amateur
> astronomers have a sufficiently clear understanding of the concepts
> behind the Earth's motions in the heavens that no conspiracy to
> obfuscate or distort them could possibly get off the ground!
>
> On the other hand, some of what you object to isn't going anywhere -
> because it doesn't have to do with the phenomena, it has to do with
> how we look at them. We take the time from our mechanical clocks, even
> though they were devised by our own hands, as the basis, and the time
> a sundial shows as something that is derived from it as a consequence.
> As you correctly note, Copernicus and Huygens didn't do that; but
> Newton and Flamsteed started the habit.
>
> This is because uniform time _is_ present within the laws of nature as
> we have found them through our studies. The Earth's axial rotation
> _is_ uniform, like the motions of the clocks, and human beings neither
> set the stars in the skies, nor started the Earth spinning. Kepler's
> laws show how the Earth will move, measured in uniform time, around
> the Sun, and these, plus the Earth's uniform axial rotation (yes, that
> bad old 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds), plus the tilt of the
> Earth's axis *give* us the varying time a sundial shows us.
>
> What might have been backwards reasoning at one time, from the
> hypothetical and invisible to the everyday visible fact, is now clear
> and forwards reasoning, because we are used to mechanical devices and
> their uniform time scale.
>
> > The way
> > the average 24 hour day was transfered to the axial cycle as
> > 'constant' in order to create the inviolate 24 hour/360 degree
> > correlation should be the pride of any thinking person but it just has
> > not happened here,not even with the principles of Copernicus and
> > Huygens present.
>
> These principles have not been discarded by astronomers today. They
> have only been *rephrased* to suit a time when sundials are few, and
> wristwatches are many.
>
> John Savard

Date: 07 Jul 2007 21:56:27
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:53 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > No one but you has said that
> > a "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
.
> Living with the knowledge that an entire group of people would
> willingly believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly
> in order to justify a 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value is an
> experience that I woiuld not wish on another individual.
.
To be fair, you have shown us some examples of web sites and other
sources that explain the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second axial rotation
of the Earth by starting with statements that imply that a solar day
is always 24 hours exactly.

This, however, is simply an error, or an oversimplification to delay
explaining the Equation of Time until later. Astronomers do not claim
the solar day is 24 hours exactly, and any textbook on positional
astronomy, for example, will show you that the Equation of Time is
still understood by those who are called astronomers!

> To think that
> any person would vandalise an exquisite set of principles such as the
> 'Equation of Time' that renders the equable 24 hour day cycle from the
> inequalities of the natural noon cycle would be unimaginable yet that
> is eaxactly what you do -
.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
.
This is one of those examples. It should have been "mean solar day"
and "sidereal day", not "solar day" and "mean sidereal day".

You have made typographical errors in your posts too. Don't judge the
astronomical community by a typo!

> It is not your ignorance and those like you that concerns me but
> rather the lack of courage in those who should know better .
.
There's nothing for them to be courageous about, because the official
astronomical community has _not_ got it wrong! Millions of amateur
astronomers have a sufficiently clear understanding of the concepts
behind the Earth's motions in the heavens that no conspiracy to
obfuscate or distort them could possibly get off the ground!

On the other hand, some of what you object to isn't going anywhere -
because it doesn't have to do with the phenomena, it has to do with
how we look at them. We take the time from our mechanical clocks, even
though they were devised by our own hands, as the basis, and the time
a sundial shows as something that is derived from it as a consequence.
As you correctly note, Copernicus and Huygens didn't do that; but
Newton and Flamsteed started the habit.

This is because uniform time _is_ present within the laws of nature as
we have found them through our studies. The Earth's axial rotation
_is_ uniform, like the motions of the clocks, and human beings neither
set the stars in the skies, nor started the Earth spinning. Kepler's
laws show how the Earth will move, measured in uniform time, around
the Sun, and these, plus the Earth's uniform axial rotation (yes, that
bad old 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds), plus the tilt of the
Earth's axis *give* us the varying time a sundial shows us.

What might have been backwards reasoning at one time, from the
hypothetical and invisible to the everyday visible fact, is now clear
and forwards reasoning, because we are used to mechanical devices and
their uniform time scale.

> The way
> the average 24 hour day was transfered to the axial cycle as
> 'constant' in order to create the inviolate 24 hour/360 degree
> correlation should be the pride of any thinking person but it just has
> not happened here,not even with the principles of Copernicus and
> Huygens present.

These principles have not been discarded by astronomers today. They
have only been *rephrased* to suit a time when sundials are few, and
wristwatches are many.

John Savard

Date: 09 Jul 2007 10:58:43
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 11:53 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > No one but you has said that
> > > a "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> .
> > Living with the knowledge that an entire group of people would
> > willingly believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly
> > in order to justify a 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value is an
> > experience that I woiuld not wish on another individual.
> .
> To be fair, you have shown us some examples of web sites and other
> sources that explain the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second axial rotation
> of the Earth by starting with statements that imply that a solar day
> is always 24 hours exactly.
>
> This, however, is simply an error, or an oversimplification to delay
> explaining the Equation of Time until later. Astronomers do not claim
> the solar day is 24 hours exactly, and any textbook on positional
> astronomy, for example, will show you that the Equation of Time is
> still understood by those who are called astronomers!

Education consists in telling half-truths (or even outright lies)
to avoid complicating things too much for the pupil.
In the next stage a fuller version of the truth may be told.
And so on.

The trouble with our troll seems to be that he remained stuck
in an early stage of the process, and refuses to learn more.

Best,

Jan

"Centrifugal forces don't exist!" (high school physics teacher)

Date: 07 Jul 2007 16:16:18
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> but rather about those who suffered from
> knowing that they were good at something but because of the dominance
> of false concepts such as 'sidereal time' and the tactics that
> surround it,never got to express their talents.My efforts are for them
> and they may yet appear to make astronomy a vibrant and exciting
> endeavor once again.
.
If people are being barred from contributing to astronomy because
their parents are poor or do not come from aristocratic or well-
connected families, this is an injustice to be fought.

But if people are barred from careers in the sciences because they're
not smart enough to understand first-year calculus, it may be sad for
them, but there's not a thing that anyone can do about it. The
"scientific priesthood" that enshrouds the motion of the bodies of the
solar system in a web of complication exists only in your imagination.

My web site at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

explains the Equation of Time in terms of...

the axial tilt of the Earth compared to its orbit (which is real, and
does cause the seasons, but which does not "vary" in the course of a
year);

the elliptical orbit of the Earth with a varying rate of motion,
following Kepler's laws;

the annual motion of the Earth around the Sun once a year; and

the uniform rotation of the Earth on its axis, which, when considered
in itself, and not in terms of the Earth's relation to the Sun, does
indeed have a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

The stars make a 360 degree circle around the Earth and the Sun, and
so both the 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds of a rotation of the
Earth, and the 365 and 1/4 days of a revolution of the Earth around
the Sun correspond to 360 degrees - as *well* as the 24 hours of a
solar day, since at any one moment, the 360 degrees of the Earth
correspond to all 360 degrees of relationship to the Sun, giving all
values of local solar time of day.

I have quite scrupulously checked my page to avoid the errors and
oversimplifications that you have objected to in some other places
that discuss these things, but the page is in terms of conventional
astronomy - because it is right, and it works.

The whole world is not out of step, with you the only one who knows
the truth.

John Savard

Date: 07 Jul 2007 09:28:06
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 4, 11:52 pm, x...@xxx.xxx (McQ) wrote:
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You numbskulls sealed your own fate by believing the 24 hour noon
> >cycle is equable and if you are too stupid to support your own garbage
> >then do not bother me -
>
> So...what is this "fate"? What are the consequences going to be by
> looking at my watch and saying "It's almost 12:00pm again today; time
> for lunch"?
>
> What is your obssesion with this? What are you being cheated out
> of?
>
> McQ

You look at the motion of the hands of a watch and do not know what
goes into it,all the careful observations by astronomers for
millenia,the timekeeping astronomers who arranged the structure of the
24 hour day and the seperate calendar system,the great heloiocentric
astronomers who split the Earth's motion into axial and orbital,the
inventors who created accurate watches and all acting in sync so you
know what time 'lunch' is.

A civilisation which cannot accurately promote how the 24 hour day
originated astronomically and how they elapse into each other via the
Equation of Time correction can hardly be called a civilisation.It
just happens that you and your kind believe that the noon cycle is 24
hours exactly in order to justify the motions of the Earth to the
return of a star to a meridian -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

The problem of global warming pales in comparison to the intellectual
standard which dominates celestial/terrestrial investigations yet the
same people who cannot grasp the basic axial cycle of the Earth will
be influencing political decisions in resopect to global climate,a
discipline heavily dependent on the motions of the Earth.Now you want
to know what our fate is, but that is all dependent on the courage of
individuals who have a shread of appreciation into what goes into that
standard pace of a clock hand you see day in and day out.

Date: 01 Jul 2007 20:59:32
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The intricate details behind the 24 hour/360 degree correlation which
> > links clocks to the axial cycle can now be fully appreciated by those
> > who make the small effort to see how it is done -
>
> You mean 24h/361=B0 correlation (approximately)!
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

The idea that a location rotates to noon in exactly 24 hours in order
to justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth to a star is
false.It is the only fact that counts whether people deal with the
matter or not.

The additional information linking clocks to the axial cycle and
terrestrial longitudes via the Equation of Time correction and the 24
hour/360 degree correlation is now here for all to enjoy -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

The opportunity to set things right is there for any individual who
finds himself/herself on the right side of the argument,in this case
the observation that the duration of the noon cycles are unequal as
opposed to the false 'sidereal time' view that they are equal.

Global climate and the motions of the Earth are linked in an intimate
way and I assure you that working with the correct dynamical
principles of axial/orbital motions alters the way global climate and
the seasons are approached as people will soon discover.

So Sam,I appreciate that you normally do not respond to threads and
yet you are left to try and make an argument for the guys in this
forum who have conveniently disappeared and even if your
creationistlike attitude to the daily cycle is unintelligent,at least
you are trying.As I have little regard for your 'sidereal time'
dynamics for the motion of the Earth it remains only to express a
little sadness for sheer loss of human effort before turning to the
matter of recovering heliocentricity and the principles which keep
clocks in sync with the axial cycle as 24 hours/360 degrees.

It is somebody else's turn now.

> Again, Kelleher, let me simplify it for you with this diagram. Please
> note that the orbit of the earth is an ellipse obeying Kelpers 2nd
> law and the axis of the earth is tilted with respect to the normal of
> the ecliptic plane.
> http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/H_A_Rey-orbit.gif

Date: 09 Jul 2007 07:17:02
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 7, 12:55 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Because the Earth advanced around the Sun by a degree, however, after
> 24 hours it is *not* the same sidereal time as it was 24 hours ago; by
> that clock, it is about one degree in angle, or four minutes of time,
> later. So the sidereal time repeated itself four minutes ago.

This has all been explained to Oriel ad nauseum, by many different
people (myself included). But he is not interested in the truth, he
is interested in feeding hs Asperger's Syndrome.

Ultimately, he can't bring himself to face the fact that *either* an
earth rotation, with respect to the stars, happens every 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4.xx seconds, *or* the entire universe revolves around
the solar system once a year, and that there *is no other solution*.

Austin

Date: 07 Jul 2007 18:23:34
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 7, 11:53 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 10:52 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 5, 11:47 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > It is difficult to believe that the gracious efforts of people like
> > > > > > Huygens has come to this,a simple correlation which keeps the 24 hour
> > > > > > day elapsing into each other by making using of the inequalities in
> > > > > > the natural noon cycle should be enjoyed by everyone yet due to the
> > > > > > efforts people just like you ,the intricate principles wither into a
> > > > > > mess where the natural noon cycle is believed to be 24 hours exactly -
>
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> > > > > > That utter junk promoted by all the major institutions only
> > > > > > highlights the absence of astronomers and not the prevelence of them.
>
> > > > > Reality check. A google search on
> > > > > "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> > > > > results in:
> > > > > =====
> > > > > Did you mean: "location relates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
>
> > > > You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
> > > > 'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
> > > > exactly -
>
> > > Intelligent enough to spot a troll,
> > > and a straw man too,
>
> > > Jan-
> > I believe there are concerts today in numerous cities based on
> > appreciating the planet but unfortunately the anti-heroes of our race
> > who visit and post here do not have the intelligence to defend what
> > has been known from antiquity - that the noon cycles are unequal -
>
> [snip repetions]
> No one but you has said that
> a "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
>

Living with the knowledge that an entire group of people would
willingly believe that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly
in order to justify a 23 hours 56 minute 04 second value is an
experience that I woiuld not wish on another individual.To think that
any person would vandalise an exquisite set of principles such as the
'Equation of Time' that renders the equable 24 hour day cycle from the
inequalities of the natural noon cycle would be unimaginable yet that
is eaxactly what you do -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

> Therefore you are fighting a straw man of your own making,
>
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is not your ignorance and those like you that concerns me but
rather the lack of courage in those who should know better .The way
the average 24 hour day was transfered to the axial cycle as
'constant' in order to create the inviolate 24 hour/360 degree
correlation should be the pride of any thinking person but it just has
not happened here,not even with the principles of Copernicus and
Huygens present.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 18:49:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

This day many people try to celebrate the planet and how its makes
existence possible.Because I remain here among the ruins of a once
great astronomical heritage,I think this music is appropriate for the
action of vandals who now doiminate the astronomical ruins,people who
willingly destroy what they have no feel for -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DRRMz8fKkG2g

It was never about your kind but rather about those who suffered from
knowing that they were good at something but because of the dominance
of false concepts such as 'sidereal time' and the tactics that
surround it,never got to express their talents.My efforts are for them
and they may yet appear to make astronomy a vibrant and exciting
endeavor once again.

On Jul 7, 7:55 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The explanation to which that image is attached is a gruesome
> > spectacle where 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds 'wraps around' as 24
> > hours.
>
> > "When one moves eastward 15=B0 in longitude, sidereal time is larger by
> > one hour (note that it wraps around at 24 hours). "
>
> I can understand that this might seem to be a gruesome spectacle!
>
> After all, we know the 24 hour day corresponds to 360 degrees.
>
> How can a different 23 hour 56 minute and 4 second day *also*
> correspond to 360 degrees?
>
> But, as a matter of fact, they do! How can that be?
>
> Because the correspondence is a *static* one. The Earth is a sphere,
> and longitude makes a 360 degree circle.
>
> So, at any one moment, the different places on the Earth cover all 360
> degrees of angle with the Sun, once and only once, corresponding
> exactly to the 24 hours of a solar day.
>
> Also at that one moment, the different places on the Earth cover all
> 360 degrees of angle with the stars, once and only once, corresponding
> to the 24 short sidereal hours of a 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second
> sidereal day!
>
> But what happens 24 hours later?
>
> Then there is *motion*. And it is in motion that the difference in
> time between the solar day and the "sidereal day" axial rotation
> becomes apparent!
>
> 24 hours later - give or take the few seconds that might be that day's
> accumulation of the Equation of Time - it is the same solar time as it
> was 24 hours ago everywhere on Earth.
>
> Because the Earth advanced around the Sun by a degree, however, after
> 24 hours it is *not* the same sidereal time as it was 24 hours ago; by
> that clock, it is about one degree in angle, or four minutes of time,
> later. So the sidereal time repeated itself four minutes ago.
>
> John Savard

Date: 05 Jul 2007 17:14:46
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> I looked at the Nasa website which believes,as you do,that a location
> rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly

I do not believe that a location "rotates to noon" in 24 hours
exactly. I am aware of the corrections required by the Equation of
Time. And you should be aware that I am aware of this as well.

quoting the NASA web site:
> "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

When they say "There ARE 24 hours in the 'solar day'", they are not
trying to claim that sundials keep exact clock time. The problem is,
instead, that they must explain something that is not familiar to
ordinary people without becoming excessively pedantic.

So, they are simply saying that they are NOT trying to say that there
are 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds in the normal day by which we
regulate our times of sleep and wakefulness. That day is exactly 24
hours in length... except for a day in the spring that is 23 days
long, and a day in the fall that is 25 hours long.

Because we now do those things by the clock, not the sundial.

It is not *astronomers* who have, shall we say, "corrupted" people
into thinking of the artificial 24 hour mechanical clock day as the
real day, so much so that except for noting whether it is light or
dark, they are unaware for the most part of what the Sun is doing.
This, rather, is simply due to the mechanized life we now live.

So, to explain things to such people, they must begin in a simplified
form.

John Savard

Date: 01 Jul 2007 22:38:59
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>> The intricate details behind the 24 hour/360 degree correlation which
>>> links clocks to the axial cycle can now be fully appreciated by those
>>> who make the small effort to see how it is done -
>> You mean 24h/361� correlation (approximately)!
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> The idea that a location rotates to noon in exactly 24 hours in order
> to justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth to a star is
> false.It is the only fact that counts whether people deal with the
> matter or not.
>
> The additional information linking clocks to the axial cycle and
> terrestrial longitudes via the Equation of Time correction and the 24
> hour/360 degree correlation is now here for all to enjoy -
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> The opportunity to set things right is there for any individual who
> finds himself/herself on the right side of the argument,in this case
> the observation that the duration of the noon cycles are unequal as
> opposed to the false 'sidereal time' view that they are equal.
>
> Global climate and the motions of the Earth are linked in an intimate
> way and I assure you that working with the correct dynamical
> principles of axial/orbital motions alters the way global climate and
> the seasons are approached as people will soon discover.
>
> So Sam,I appreciate that you normally do not respond to threads and
> yet you are left to try and make an argument for the guys in this
> forum who have conveniently disappeared and even if your
> creationistlike attitude to the daily cycle is unintelligent,at least
> you are trying.As I have little regard for your 'sidereal time'
> dynamics for the motion of the Earth it remains only to express a
> little sadness for sheer loss of human effort before turning to the
> matter of recovering heliocentricity and the principles which keep
> clocks in sync with the axial cycle as 24 hours/360 degrees.
>
> It is somebody else's turn now.
>

I was cleaning up/out my killfile... when you reappeared. It probably
won't take me long to put you back in there. But I thought we might both
enjoy trying to find common ground first.

o note that the earth roration rate varies slightly
o sidereal day = 360�
o solar day = 361� approximately as the earth progresses about 1� in
its orbit wrt the sun. See: http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/H_A_Rey-orbit.gif

Date: 02 Jul 2007 14:00:31
From:
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

\_\_\_____/_/_/
{o o}
] [ "Please don't feed the Trolls"
[_] /

"Responding just
encourages them!"
\
>')
( \
^^`

Date: 01 Jul 2007 17:18:34
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 2:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>> Any person who believes that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours
> >>> exactly is hardly an astronomer yet that is the situation
> >>> presently,there for all to see.
> >> Kelleher--Look at section C of the Astronomical Almanac--specifically
> >> the Ephemeris Transit time for the sun. Corrected for the equation of
> >> time, "a location rotates to noon in 24 hours" is right on. The
> >> phenomenon is there for all to see!
>
> > I do not know of any situation which is comparable to this one,the
> > most basic of all astronomical observations known since antiquity that
> > no two noon cycles are of equal duration hence the Equation of Time
> > correction to create the 24 hour cycle and keep these cycles ticking
> > over.
>
> > If it was a matter of some obscure and minor fact I could understand
> > the lack of responses but to knowingly support a concept which has a
> > location rotate constantly to noon in 24 hours should shock people -
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> > The irritation in dealing with people who take pleasure in making up
> > stories to suit whatever conclusion they wish ,for such is the
> > 'sidereal time' justification for the Earth's motions,pales in
> > comparison to the sheer lack of appreciation of the correct
> > principles,not just timekeeping but more importantly heliocentric
> > reasoning.
>
> > If somebody else can think of a dismal situation,apart from hunger
> > and poverty,that is more immediate than this one I certainly can't
> > think of one.The Earth's axial and orbital motions condition global
> > climate and the seasons yet the people responsible for informing the
> > political authorities who in turn will make crucial decisions cannot
> > even express the daily cycle correctly.
>
> Here, Kelleher, let me simplify it for you with this diagram. Please
> note that the orbit of the earth is an ellipse obeying Kelpers 2nd
> law and the axis of the earth is tilted with respect to the normal of
> the ecliptic plane.
> http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/H_A_Rey-orbit.gif- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All those outwardly polished reputations built on a basic error which
can be simply checked with a stopwatch at noon,the simple observation
that a location does not rotate to noon in 24 hours whereas your cult
believes that it does-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

There is a sense of joy in finding Huygen's treatise on how to
determine the noon cycle allied with the Equation of Time to create
the 24 hour day as it completes the recent emergence of the discovery
behind clocks and terrestrial longitudes, specifically Dava Sobel's
excellent book -

http://www.sailtexas.com/long.html

The intricate details behind the 24 hour/360 degree correlation which
links clocks to the axial cycle can now be fully appreciated by those
who make the small effort to see how it is done -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

What happens next is entirely up to the generosity and courage of
individuals who have the intellectual capacity to promote what is
correct in the face of a cult which has its own ideas about
clocks ,the axial cycle and longitudes and specifically the idiotic
notion that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours.

That is all for a while.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 10:55:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> The explanation to which that image is attached is a gruesome
> spectacle where 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds 'wraps around' as 24
> hours.
>
> "When one moves eastward 15=B0 in longitude, sidereal time is larger by
> one hour (note that it wraps around at 24 hours). "

I can understand that this might seem to be a gruesome spectacle!

After all, we know the 24 hour day corresponds to 360 degrees.

How can a different 23 hour 56 minute and 4 second day *also*
correspond to 360 degrees?

But, as a matter of fact, they do! How can that be?

Because the correspondence is a *static* one. The Earth is a sphere,
and longitude makes a 360 degree circle.

So, at any one moment, the different places on the Earth cover all 360
degrees of angle with the Sun, once and only once, corresponding
exactly to the 24 hours of a solar day.

Also at that one moment, the different places on the Earth cover all
360 degrees of angle with the stars, once and only once, corresponding
to the 24 short sidereal hours of a 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second
sidereal day!

But what happens 24 hours later?

Then there is *motion*. And it is in motion that the difference in
time between the solar day and the "sidereal day" axial rotation
becomes apparent!

24 hours later - give or take the few seconds that might be that day's
accumulation of the Equation of Time - it is the same solar time as it
was 24 hours ago everywhere on Earth.

Because the Earth advanced around the Sun by a degree, however, after
24 hours it is *not* the same sidereal time as it was 24 hours ago; by
that clock, it is about one degree in angle, or four minutes of time,
later. So the sidereal time repeated itself four minutes ago.

John Savard

Date: 07 Jul 2007 09:13:26
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 7, 10:52 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 11:47 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > It is difficult to believe that the gracious efforts of people like
> > > > Huygens has come to this,a simple correlation which keeps the 24 ho=
ur
> > > > day elapsing into each other by making using of the inequalities =
in
> > > > the natural noon cycle should be enjoyed by everyone yet due to the
> > > > efforts people just like you ,the intricate principles wither into=
a
> > > > mess where the natural noon cycle is believed to be 24 hours exactl=
y -
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> > > > That utter junk promoted by all the major institutions only
> > > > highlights the absence of astronomers and not the prevelence of the=
m=2E
>
> > > Reality check. A google search on
> > > "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly" =20
> > > results in:
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > Did you mean: "location relates to noon in 24 hours exactly" =20
>
> > You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
> > 'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
> > exactly -
>
> Intelligent enough to spot a troll,
> and a straw man too,
>
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I believe there are concerts today in numerous cities based on
appreciating the planet but unfortunately the anti-heroes of our race
who visit and post here do not have the intelligence to defend what
has been known from antiquity - that the noon cycles are unequal -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

The explanation to which that image is attached is a gruesome
spectacle where 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds 'wraps around' as 24
hours.

"When one moves eastward 15=B0 in longitude, sidereal time is larger by
one hour (note that it wraps around at 24 hours). "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

The usual tactic of making things personal never work with this
material,no matter how hard you numbskulls try,the magnificent
principles which create the 24 hour day and subsequently keep clocks
in sync with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees are too enjoyable
when the 'sidereal time' junk is removed .It all hinges on the
observation that the natural noon cycle is unequal and then shades off
into the human devised principle of the 24 hour day via the Equation
of Time -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

It is heartening to see people who are not directly involved in
studying the motions of the Earth try to draw attention to the planet
by way of music concerts and this stands in sharp contrast to you
freaks who pretend to know about the motions of the Earth but believe
in a silly notion that noon cycles are equal.Organisatiuons such as
the NMM promote the idea that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

The explanation is even more gruesome than the Wikipedia 'explanation
-

"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361=BA with respect to the
background stars." NMM

It is brilliant that good people will try to increase awareness of the
planet and I will do my part in showing how the motions of the Earth
make existence possible and that people are astronomers insofar as we
live by the great astronomical cycles.What you crowd do is try and
draw attention to yourselves hence the 'leap second' junk and the
'sidereal time' reasoning from which it springs.

So,the great astronomical insights wither in the hands of anti-heroes
such as yourselves ,too unintelligent to know what damage you are
doing and too dull to grasp just how magnificent the original
timekeeping and structural astronomical insights actually and
beautiful they are.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 23:53:35
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On Jul 7, 10:52 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 11:47 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > It is difficult to believe that the gracious efforts of people like
> > > > > Huygens has come to this,a simple correlation which keeps the 24 hour
> > > > > day elapsing into each other by making using of the inequalities in
> > > > > the natural noon cycle should be enjoyed by everyone yet due to the
> > > > > efforts people just like you ,the intricate principles wither into a
> > > > > mess where the natural noon cycle is believed to be 24 hours exactly -
> >
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
> >
> > > > > That utter junk promoted by all the major institutions only
> > > > > highlights the absence of astronomers and not the prevelence of them.
> >
> > > > Reality check. A google search on
> > > > "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> > > > results in:
> > > > =====
> > > > Did you mean: "location relates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> >
> > > You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
> > > 'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
> > > exactly -
> >
> > Intelligent enough to spot a troll,
> > and a straw man too,
> >
> > Jan-

> I believe there are concerts today in numerous cities based on
> appreciating the planet but unfortunately the anti-heroes of our race
> who visit and post here do not have the intelligence to defend what
> has been known from antiquity - that the noon cycles are unequal -

[snip repetions]
No one but you has said that
a "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"

Therefore you are fighting a straw man of your own making,

Jan

Date: 05 Jul 2007 11:49:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 5, 8:29 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The Wkipedia article is the most obvious but all the major
> > institutions state the same false concept that a location rotates to
> > noon in 24 hours exactly in order to justify the motions of the Earth
> > to a distant star -
> .
> >http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
> .
> This site notes that while it was organized by a teacher, it was
> "written by his students".
>
> But I don't note the actual false concept that the Wikipedia image
> implies there, merely a simplification of not getting into the
> Equation of Time.
> .> It is something else to see an entire group of people ,probably
> > doctorates and teachers among you,with the inability to appreciate how
> > the 24 hour day is a human creation emerging out of recognising that
> > the total length of the noon cycle is unequal.
>
> .
> The orthodox astronomical community is well aware of the Equation of
> Time.
>
> While the 24 hour day is a human creation - born out of a desire to
> use a uniform time scale - it is also the actual average of the solar
> day over the course of a year. It is not an arbitrary human creation.
>
> And uniform time exists in nature; it is the time scale by which many
> natural processes are appropriately measured.
>
> > Because the Equation of Time principles are easy to grasp and
> > enjoyable,they should not have to compete with conceptual junk such as
> > the 'sidereal day',a counter-productive 'sidereal' concept that is sub-
> > geocentric in content and catastrophic for this era where the motions
> > of the Earth mesh with climatiology.
>
> .
> Since the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4.1 second period is not a period of
> light followed by dark, yes, it really shouldn't be called a "day". It
> should be called the Earth's axial rotation period. That is a valid
> point.
>
> > I am sorry your dull mind brings astrological geometry into the
> > motions of the Earth or rather justifies the motions of the Earth by
> > way of the distant stars instead of our own star..It is the lowest
> > people intellectual level a parson can fall to and unfortunately this
> > entire group who calls themselves 'astronomers' suffers from that
> > stupidity.
>
> .
> Here, I'm afraid, though, I have to say that you are completely wrong.
>
> We don't bring in the distant stars instead of the Sun because we're
> astrologers at heart, or out of some perversity. The motions of the
> bodies in the solar system, like everything else, is best understood
> by starting from simplicity rather than complexity. The uniform axial
> rotation of the Earth is one simplicity. The orbit of the Earth around
> the Sun is not completely simple, since it is elliptical, and since it
> is not on the same inclination as the Earth's equator, but it cannot
> be reduced to further simplicity. We start with those two simple
> things to build up to the Sun's apparent motion in the sky, which
> results from the combination of these two things.
>
> It made sense, hundreds of years ago, to start with the daily movement
> of the Sun, and then note that in a given season, the axial tilt and
> elliptical orbit would affect the axial angle, relative to the stars,
> of the Earth found at a given sundial time of day. Because it was the
> Sun, and not mechanical clocks that were in people's experience then.
>
> But now it would only be confusing. If the Earth's axial rotation is
> regular, that regularity isn't caused by irregularities in the time on
> a sundial being *cancelled* by the Earth's orbit; rather, the Earth's
> rotation is regular because nothing is pushing on it to speed it up or
> slow it down, and the Earth's orbit causes the sundial to read
> differently from a mechanical clock.
>
> The uniform scale of time, even if the particular form of it we use, a
> 24 hour day divided into 86,400 seconds, is a human creation, is still
> a natural thing, and is the basis of natural processes that change
> over time. On Mars, the Equation of Time goes through its paces over
> the course of a Martian year, about twice as long as ours - and
> instead of a Martian sundial being wrong by up to 16 minutes, it can
> be wrong by up to 50 minutes. Sundial time is a local matter,
> resulting from the peculiarities of the particular planet you happen
> to live on. Uniform time, however, governs the motions of the planets,
> the processes of chemistry, mechanics, electricity, and any other
> physical process you care to name.
>
> First, we have to get *from* the 24 hour day that is what people
> normally think of as a day, to the Earth's 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4
> second axial rotation that actually is uniform. We do that without
> bringing in the complications of the Equation of Time at that stage,
> because we have one simple fact to explain: that period, although not
> in normal human experience, is the regular one, and hence the
> fundamental one.
>
> Once we shift from sand to bedrock, then we can show how the motions
> of the Earth around the Sun combine with the turning of the Earth on
> its axis to yield the solar day that is governed by the Equation of
> Time and only averages to 24 hours. We explain it in that order
> because that is what is simple and straightforwards to understand -
> just as the operation of any machine is explained from the simple and
> uniform beginnings of its operation, not from its complicated end
> product.
>
> John Savard

I looked at the Nasa website which believes,as you do,that a location
rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to justify the 23 hours
56 minutes 04 second value -

' 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

How the worst type of reasoning ever applied to timekeeping and the
Earth's motions will be for future generations to consider but right
now a single individual is required to affirm the observation that the
noon cycle is unequal.

Your kind will stick with the destructive indoctrination that
astrological 'sidereal time' breeds and the silly concepts which arise
attaching axial rotation directly to constellation geometry -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

I enjoyed the brief spell away from diseased minds that cannot grasp
the simple way the 24 hour day is created,how the 24 hour cycles
elapse into each other and how the principle of the average 24 hour
day is applied to the axial cycle as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.

You all want the title of 'astronomer' but until this is set straight
nobody dares use that once dignified title and I do not care how many
doctorates it offends.

Date: 01 Jul 2007 20:14:50
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

oriel36 wrote:

> The intricate details behind the 24 hour/360 degree correlation which
> links clocks to the axial cycle can now be fully appreciated by those
> who make the small effort to see how it is done -
>

You mean 24h/361� correlation (approximately)!

Again, Kelleher, let me simplify it for you with this diagram. Please
note that the orbit of the earth is an ellipse obeying Kelpers 2nd
law and the axis of the earth is tilted with respect to the normal of
the ecliptic plane.
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/H_A_Rey-orbit.gif

Date: 01 Jul 2007 06:24:46
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 1, 2:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > Any person who believes that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours
> > exactly is hardly an astronomer yet that is the situation
> > presently,there for all to see.
>
> Kelleher--Look at section C of the Astronomical Almanac--specifically
> the Ephemeris Transit time for the sun. Corrected for the equation of
> time, "a location rotates to noon in 24 hours" is right on. The
> phenomenon is there for all to see!

I do not know of any situation which is comparable to this one,the
most basic of all astronomical observations known since antiquity that
no two noon cycles are of equal duration hence the Equation of Time
correction to create the 24 hour cycle and keep these cycles ticking
over.

If it was a matter of some obscure and minor fact I could understand
the lack of responses but to knowingly support a concept which has a
location rotate constantly to noon in 24 hours should shock people -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

The irritation in dealing with people who take pleasure in making up
stories to suit whatever conclusion they wish ,for such is the
'sidereal time' justification for the Earth's motions,pales in
comparison to the sheer lack of appreciation of the correct
principles,not just timekeeping but more importantly heliocentric
reasoning.

If somebody else can think of a dismal situation,apart from hunger
and poverty,that is more immediate than this one I certainly can't
think of one.The Earth's axial and orbital motions condition global
climate and the seasons yet the people responsible for informing the
political authorities who in turn will make crucial decisions cannot
even express the daily cycle correctly.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 06:30:17
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
> 'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
> exactly -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> The dumb mathematics behind that association between the Earth's
> rotation to a distant star and to our local star involves using a .986
> degree/3 minute 56 second orbital displacement -
>
> http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>
> 360 Degrees = 24 hours
>
> 1 Deg = 4 minutes
>
> .986 Deg = 3 minutes 56 seconds
>
> 24 hours minus 3 minutes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

This is not true.

360.9856 degrees - axial rotation of the Earth in 24 hours exactly
(for a rotation that performs 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes and
4 seconds)

minus

0.9856 degrees - angular advance of the Earth around the Sun in 24
hours, simply the *average* of this quantity over the course of a
year,

equals

360 degrees - one solar day going full circle in 24 hours, also the
*average* of this quantity over the course of a year by the Equation
of Time.

Now, if instead of using the equation

360.9856 - 0.9856 = 360

we use it in this form

360 + 0.9856 = 360.9856

then, since the 360.9856 is the *exact* sidereal axial rotation of the
Earth in 24 hours, it might seem to depend on the Earth 'rotating to
noon' in exactly 24 hours.

But, no, that is still faulty reasoning. Yes, if 360 and 0.9856 are
only averages, this equation by itself does not prove that 360.9856 is
anything more than an average for sidereal axial rotation in 24 hours
over the course of a year.

So we bring in Newton's Laws, that an undisturbed rotational motion
will remain uniform, or we bring in actual transit circle observations
to say, after we have, with the equation, explained what the 23 hour,
56 day, and 4 second period is *for*, that this period is also a
uniform one by our mechanical clocks, not needing to be averaged over
the course of a year the way the other ones are.

John Savard

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:15:25
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
> 'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
> exactly -

No, it does not require that.

It *would* require that *if* the Earth's orbit around the Sun was a
perfect circle, not tilted with respect to Earth's axis. Since that is
not true, the relation of the Sun to the Earth only compensates *on
average* for the difference between 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds
- and 24 hours.

Because the compensation is not always exact, but only averages out
over the course of the year - you can have the Equation of Time!

> Out of all the people who visit sci.astro.amateur,I have yet to see
> one individual affirm that the daily noon cycle is
> unequal.

I guess you didn't look at my web page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

yet, then.

The return of a star to the meridian is equal - 23 hours, 56 minutes,
4 seconds.

The orbit of the Earth around the Sun takes one year. If that were
perfectly uniform, it would convert 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds to a perfectly uniform 24 hours.

But because it is _not_ uniform, due both to the elliptical orbit of
the Earth, and the tilt of the Earth's axis compared to the ecliptic,
the uniform axial rotation of 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds is
converted instead to an *unequal solar day* which only averages out to
24 hours in the course of a year!

The time between "noon" from one day to the next, if you mean sundial
noon and not clock noon, is indeed not exactly 24 hours; it differs
slightly in a day, and these differences accumulate to up to a
difference of 15 minutes from the mechanical clock at certain times of
the year. This I do know, hold, and affirm to be true.

John Savard

Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:37:15
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 5, 11:47 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is difficult to believe that the gracious efforts of people like
> > Huygens has come to this,a simple correlation which keeps the 24 hour
> > day elapsing into each other by making using of the inequalities in
> > the natural noon cycle should be enjoyed by everyone yet due to the
> > efforts people just like you ,the intricate principles wither into a
> > mess where the natural noon cycle is believed to be 24 hours exactly -
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> > That utter junk promoted by all the major institutions only
> > highlights the absence of astronomers and not the prevelence of them.
>
> Reality check. A google search on
> "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> results in:
> =====
> Did you mean: "location relates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
>

You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
exactly -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

The dumb mathematics behind that association between the Earth's
rotation to a distant star and to our local star involves using a .986
degree/3 minute 56 second orbital displacement -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG

360 Degrees = 24 hours

1 Deg = 4 minutes

.986 Deg = 3 minutes 56 seconds

24 hours minus 3 minutes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

So,you are all concerned for the welfare of one of your members in
sci.astro.amateur yet you numbskulls inflict the worst misery on the
rest of humanity with your stupid notions.Good kids could easily
understand that the natural noon cycle is unequal and how brilliant
men equalised the natural cycle to a 24 hour cycle and kept these
cycles elapsing into each other.Then move on to how Copernicus
isolated orbital motion which left the axial rotation to explain the
daily cycle and subsequently the principles which keep clocks in sync
with axial rotation at 24 hours/360 degrees.

Out of all the people who visit sci.astro.amateur,I have yet to see
one individual affirm that the daily noon cycle is
unequal.Considering how important it is to get an accurate picture of
the Earth's axial and orbital motions with respect to each other and
to the Sun,to see all these doctoirates and polished reputations not
even appreciate the basic daily cycle is incredible.

> No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.
>
> Your search - "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly" - did not
> match any documents.
> =====
>
> It seems that -you- are the only one who is saying it,
> in fighting a straw man of your own making.
>
> Go play somewhere else,
>
> Jan

It Iis always a matter of appreciating the basic principles which
create the 24 hour day out of the unequal daily cycle so until you
learn them from a great astronomer like Huygens,you can forget your
'leap second ' junk -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

You have to be entirely stupid to believe a noon cycle is unequal
subsequently if you excuse me from being bothered with your
unintelligent response -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

Date: 07 Jul 2007 10:52:39
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On Jul 5, 11:47 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It is difficult to believe that the gracious efforts of people like
> > > Huygens has come to this,a simple correlation which keeps the 24 hour
> > > day elapsing into each other by making using of the inequalities in
> > > the natural noon cycle should be enjoyed by everyone yet due to the
> > > efforts people just like you ,the intricate principles wither into a
> > > mess where the natural noon cycle is believed to be 24 hours exactly -
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
> >
> > > That utter junk promoted by all the major institutions only
> > > highlights the absence of astronomers and not the prevelence of them.
> >
> > Reality check. A google search on
> > "location rotates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> > results in:
> > =====
> > Did you mean: "location relates to noon in 24 hours exactly"
> >
>
> You are not intelligent enough to spot that the basic principle of
> 'sidereal time' requires a location to roitate to noon in 24 hours
> exactly -

Intelligent enough to spot a troll,
and a straw man too,

Jan

Date: 04 Jul 2007 23:29:53
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> The Wkipedia article is the most obvious but all the major
> institutions state the same false concept that a location rotates to
> noon in 24 hours exactly in order to justify the motions of the Earth
> to a distant star -
.
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
.
This site notes that while it was organized by a teacher, it was
"written by his students".

But I don't note the actual false concept that the Wikipedia image
implies there, merely a simplification of not getting into the
Equation of Time.
.
> It is something else to see an entire group of people ,probably
> doctorates and teachers among you,with the inability to appreciate how
> the 24 hour day is a human creation emerging out of recognising that
> the total length of the noon cycle is unequal.
.
The orthodox astronomical community is well aware of the Equation of
Time.

While the 24 hour day is a human creation - born out of a desire to
use a uniform time scale - it is also the actual average of the solar
day over the course of a year. It is not an arbitrary human creation.

And uniform time exists in nature; it is the time scale by which many
natural processes are appropriately measured.

> Because the Equation of Time principles are easy to grasp and
> enjoyable,they should not have to compete with conceptual junk such as
> the 'sidereal day',a counter-productive 'sidereal' concept that is sub-
> geocentric in content and catastrophic for this era where the motions
> of the Earth mesh with climatiology.
.
Since the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4.1 second period is not a period of
light followed by dark, yes, it really shouldn't be called a "day". It
should be called the Earth's axial rotation period. That is a valid
point.

> I am sorry your dull mind brings astrological geometry into the
> motions of the Earth or rather justifies the motions of the Earth by
> way of the distant stars instead of our own star..It is the lowest
> people intellectual level a parson can fall to and unfortunately this
> entire group who calls themselves 'astronomers' suffers from that
> stupidity.
.
Here, I'm afraid, though, I have to say that you are completely wrong.

We don't bring in the distant stars instead of the Sun because we're
astrologers at heart, or out of some perversity. The motions of the
bodies in the solar system, like everything else, is best understood
by starting from simplicity rather than complexity. The uniform axial
rotation of the Earth is one simplicity. The orbit of the Earth around
the Sun is not completely simple, since it is elliptical, and since it
is not on the same inclination as the Earth's equator, but it cannot
be reduced to further simplicity. We start with those two simple
things to build up to the Sun's apparent motion in the sky, which
results from the combination of these two things.

It made sense, hundreds of years ago, to start with the daily movement
of the Sun, and then note that in a given season, the axial tilt and
elliptical orbit would affect the axial angle, relative to the stars,
of the Earth found at a given sundial time of day. Because it was the
Sun, and not mechanical clocks that were in people's experience then.

But now it would only be confusing. If the Earth's axial rotation is
regular, that regularity isn't caused by irregularities in the time on
a sundial being *cancelled* by the Earth's orbit; rather, the Earth's
rotation is regular because nothing is pushing on it to speed it up or
slow it down, and the Earth's orbit causes the sundial to read
differently from a mechanical clock.

The uniform scale of time, even if the particular form of it we use, a
24 hour day divided into 86,400 seconds, is a human creation, is still
a natural thing, and is the basis of natural processes that change
over time. On Mars, the Equation of Time goes through its paces over
the course of a Martian year, about twice as long as ours - and
instead of a Martian sundial being wrong by up to 16 minutes, it can
be wrong by up to 50 minutes. Sundial time is a local matter,
resulting from the peculiarities of the particular planet you happen
to live on. Uniform time, however, governs the motions of the planets,
the processes of chemistry, mechanics, electricity, and any other
physical process you care to name.

First, we have to get *from* the 24 hour day that is what people
normally think of as a day, to the Earth's 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4
second axial rotation that actually is uniform. We do that without
bringing in the complications of the Equation of Time at that stage,
because we have one simple fact to explain: that period, although not
in normal human experience, is the regular one, and hence the
fundamental one.

Once we shift from sand to bedrock, then we can show how the motions
of the Earth around the Sun combine with the turning of the Earth on
its axis to yield the solar day that is governed by the Equation of
Time and only averages to 24 hours. We explain it in that order
because that is what is simple and straightforwards to understand -
just as the operation of any machine is explained from the simple and
uniform beginnings of its operation, not from its complicated end
product.

John Savard

Date: 04 Jul 2007 20:23:34
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 5, 1:32 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > the intricate principles wither into a
> > mess where the natural noon cycle is believed to be 24 hours exactly -
>
> .
> You're right; they *are* mean!
>
> That should have been:
>
> 23 h 56' 04"
> a sidereal day
>
> 24 h
> a mean solar day
>
> But you complain if *we* judge you by a typo. Should you judge the
> whole orthodox official astronomical community by one typo on
> Wikipedia?
>
> John Savard

The Wkipedia article is the most obvious but all the major
institutions state the same false concept that a location rotates to
noon in 24 hours exactly in order to justify the motions of the Earth
to a distant star -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

It is something else to see an entire group of people ,probably
doctorates and teachers among you,with the inability to appreciate how
the 24 hour day is a human creation emerging out of recognising that
the total length of the noon cycle is unequal.

Because the Equation of Time principles are easy to grasp and
enjoyable,they should not have to compete with conceptual junk such as
the 'sidereal day',a counter-productive 'sidereal' concept that is sub-
geocentric in content and catastrophic for this era where the motions
of the Earth mesh with climatiology.

I am sorry your dull mind brings astrological geometry into the
motions of the Earth or rather justifies the motions of the Earth by
way of the distant stars instead of our own star..It is the lowest
people intellectual level a parson can fall to and unfortunately this
entire group who calls themselves 'astronomers' suffers from that
stupidity.

Date: 01 Jul 2007 16:24:08
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>> Any person who believes that a location rotates to noon in 24 hours
>>> exactly is hardly an astronomer yet that is the situation
>>> presently,there for all to see.
>> Kelleher--Look at section C of the Astronomical Almanac--specifically
>> the Ephemeris Transit time for the sun. Corrected for the equation of
>> time, "a location rotates to noon in 24 hours" is right on. The
>> phenomenon is there for all to see!
>
> I do not know of any situation which is comparable to this one,the
> most basic of all astronomical observations known since antiquity that
> no two noon cycles are of equal duration hence the Equation of Time
> correction to create the 24 hour cycle and keep these cycles ticking
> over.
>
> If it was a matter of some obscure and minor fact I could understand
> the lack of responses but to knowingly support a concept which has a
> location rotate constantly to noon in 24 hours should shock people -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> The irritation in dealing with people who take pleasure in making up
> stories to suit whatever conclusion they wish ,for such is the
> 'sidereal time' justification for the Earth's motions,pales in
> comparison to the sheer lack of appreciation of the correct
> principles,not just timekeeping but more importantly heliocentric
> reasoning.
>
> If somebody else can think of a dismal situation,apart from hunger
> and poverty,that is more immediate than this one I certainly can't
> think of one.The Earth's axial and orbital motions condition global
> climate and the seasons yet the people responsible for informing the
> political authorities who in turn will make crucial decisions cannot
> even express the daily cycle correctly.
>

Here, Kelleher, let me simplify it for you with this diagram. Please
note that the orbit of the earth is an ellipse obeying Kelpers 2nd
law and the axis of the earth is tilted with respect to the normal of
the ecliptic plane.
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/H_A_Rey-orbit.gif

Date: 30 Jun 2007 12:05:06
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:27 am, jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard)
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:01:50 -0000, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote, in part:
> >
> > >I guess people are not just intelligent enough to recognise that axial
> > >rotation of the Earth was never determined by clocks
> >
> > While one of the things we want to use clocks for is to tell us when to
> > eat breakfast and when it is bedtime - for which the clocks should keep
> > pace with the axial rotation of the Earth in relation to the Sun -
> > they're also used for other purposes.
> >
> > People studying how long chemical reactions take, or the dynamics of
> > moving bodies, or any other process that takes place in time, need a
> > uniform scale of time, so that if something takes 48.3 seconds to
> > happen, it will take 48.3 seconds whether it is morning or afternoon,
> > and whether it is spring or fall.
> >
> > The leap second isn't pretentious, it's an attempt to satisfy *both*
> > conflicting goals.

> You are a mathematician who knows no better,many like you have
> dominated astronomy for the few centuries since the unfortunate
> Flamsteed/Newton era introduced astrological reasoning into Copernican
> heliocentricity.
>
> Mathematical logic has no feeling but astronomy is full of it insofar
> as we are all astronomers by virtue of living by and with the axial
> and orbital motions of the Earth.

I know that there are a number of people these days who do criticize
modern science for its lack of feeling. Generally, they are arts
students in colleges, and are interested in things like
Deconstructionism.

I think that reason and feeling both have their place in life, but
science does not do its work well if it becomes more subjective and
less logical.

John Savard

Date: 07 Jul 2007 06:41:26
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
.
> > Indeed. But this was not a circular definition, because this time scale,
> > as given by mechanical clocks, already existed.
.
> The equation of time by itself
> doesn't have anything to do with clocks.
> It was already known to the ancient Babylonians,
> and Ptolemy describes it in detail in his Almagest.
.
That is true. In fact, it is actually *because* this is true that
Gerard Kelleher is having problems accepting the simplified
explanations of the Equation of Time that put the mechanical clock
first - because that is what ordinary people today are used to.

Instead, he prefers the way people like Kepler and Huyghens explained
these things correctly - feeling that the way today's astronomers
discuss the subject is not only not the same as the truth presented by
Kepler and Huyghens, but is even worse than the geocentric version
from Ptolemy - hence his term "sub-geocentric".

Yes, the _Almagest_ did discuss the Equation of Time. It was presented
as a correction that would be needed if one were calculating the
position of the Moon. And that's certainly a legitimate way to bring
in a uniform time scale; Ephemeris Time was constructed by deriving
uniform time from the motions of all the planets.

But it is not the simplest conceptual territory from which to present
the Equation of Time. Nor does it defend Newton from the charge of
simply making uniform time up as dramatically as pointing out that, in
his day, there already were mechanical clocks of a sort.

John Savard

Date: 04 Jul 2007 01:05:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
.
> > We live in a mechanized society; this may be
> > deplored for some reasons, but that has meant that for us the most
> > practical time scale is the one in which the uniform rotations of our
> > turbines and dynamos are most naturally measured.
.
> That's it, but restricting oneself to turbines etc
> is a bit limited.
.
I am setting up to wax poetic.

First, the evil capitalists made people wake up in the morning by
mechanical clocks and not the Sun so that they would work each day for
the same number of rotations of the steam-engine driven shafts that
powered the looms over which they slaved.

But departing from the Sun by +/- 15 minutes by ignoring the Equation
of Time to correct clumsy mechanical clocks was only the beginning!

Then, to simplify railroad schedules, they once again violated the
natural daily cycle by only allowing clocks to be set with one-hour
differences from a clock set to mean solar time in Greenwich, rather
than the mean solar time of one's own city. This invention, Standard
Time, led to an additional departure of +/- 30 minutes from real mean
solar time, or even more if time zone boundaries were shifted for
convenience.

And then they used the exigencies of war to get everyone up an hour
earlier to conserve fuel - Daylight Savings Time, or Summer Time -
thus completing, and making the most blatant, their abuse of the
mechanical clock to enslave the common man!

John Savard

Date: 04 Jul 2007 13:16:37
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > John Savard <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
> .
> > > We live in a mechanized society; this may be
> > > deplored for some reasons, but that has meant that for us the most
> > > practical time scale is the one in which the uniform rotations of our
> > > turbines and dynamos are most naturally measured.
> .
> > That's it, but restricting oneself to turbines etc
> > is a bit limited.
> .
> I am setting up to wax poetic.
>
> First, the evil capitalists made people wake up in the morning by
> mechanical clocks and not the Sun so that they would work each day for
> the same number of rotations of the steam-engine driven shafts that
> powered the looms over which they slaved.
>
> But departing from the Sun by +/- 15 minutes by ignoring the Equation
> of Time to correct clumsy mechanical clocks was only the beginning!
>
> Then, to simplify railroad schedules, they once again violated the
> natural daily cycle by only allowing clocks to be set with one-hour
> differences from a clock set to mean solar time in Greenwich, rather
> than the mean solar time of one's own city. This invention, Standard
> Time, led to an additional departure of +/- 30 minutes from real mean
> solar time, or even more if time zone boundaries were shifted for
> convenience.
>
> And then they used the exigencies of war to get everyone up an hour
> earlier to conserve fuel - Daylight Savings Time, or Summer Time -
> thus completing, and making the most blatant, their abuse of the
> mechanical clock to enslave the common man!

You err on the left.
On the right one may note that the one and only true time
is the time of the sun, as indicated by the sundial.
It is the time given to mankind by god,
and any tampering with it is blasphemy.

It was an invention of evil city-folk
who want the honest hard-working farmer
to get up an hour too early
to milk the cows in the dark
to get them their fresh milk in time.

If god had intended that we should get up an hour later
he would have commanded the sun to stand still for an hour,
as he did for Joshua.

Jan

Date: 01 Jul 2007 13:20:40
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2:27 am, jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard)
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:01:50 -0000, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote, in part:
> > >
> > > >I guess people are not just intelligent enough to recognise that axial
> > > >rotation of the Earth was never determined by clocks
> > >
> > > While one of the things we want to use clocks for is to tell us when to
> > > eat breakfast and when it is bedtime - for which the clocks should keep
> > > pace with the axial rotation of the Earth in relation to the Sun -
> > > they're also used for other purposes.
> > >
> > > People studying how long chemical reactions take, or the dynamics of
> > > moving bodies, or any other process that takes place in time, need a
> > > uniform scale of time, so that if something takes 48.3 seconds to
> > > happen, it will take 48.3 seconds whether it is morning or afternoon,
> > > and whether it is spring or fall.
> > >
> > > The leap second isn't pretentious, it's an attempt to satisfy *both*
> > > conflicting goals.
>
> > You are a mathematician who knows no better,many like you have
> > dominated astronomy for the few centuries since the unfortunate
> > Flamsteed/Newton era introduced astrological reasoning into Copernican
> > heliocentricity.
> >
> > Mathematical logic has no feeling but astronomy is full of it insofar
> > as we are all astronomers by virtue of living by and with the axial
> > and orbital motions of the Earth.
>
> I know that there are a number of people these days who do criticize
> modern science for its lack of feeling. Generally, they are arts
> students in colleges, and are interested in things like
> Deconstructionism.
>
> I think that reason and feeling both have their place in life, but
> science does not do its work well if it becomes more subjective and
> less logical.
>
> John Savard

FYI, you are feeding a troll,

Jan

Date: 04 Jul 2007 18:32:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jul 4, 9:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Nobody appears to have the intelligence to enjoy how the average 24
> > hour day was transfered to a 'constant ' axial cycle without tying the
> > clock directly as a physical manifestation of axial rotation.The
> > equalising noon correction (Equation of Time) which formely kept one
> > 24 hour day elapsing into the next 24 hour day simply keeps the axial
> > cycle constant as expressed a by 4 minute equals 1 degree of
> > terrestrial longitude and geographical seperation.
> .
> > I will wait for people who have the neccessary intelligence to
> > appreciate what is so wonderful about the true astronomical principles
> > and what is so damaging about a concept which believes that the
> > physical noon cycle is 24 hours exactly .
>
> .
> You are correct that the physical noon cycle is not 24 hours exactly.
>
> There is no rotation in nature in our Solar System that has an exact
> uniform period of 24 hours.
>
> Astronomers know this. They know that 24 hours is only the average,
> over the course of a year, of the natural noon cycle.
>

You are simply not intelligent people,you believe the noon cycle is 24
hours in order to justify the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

There are no astronomers,people who have the lovely knowledge of how
the natural unequal cycle was equalised to a 24 hour cycle and from
there to the 24 hour/360 degree correlation which links clocks to the
axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes.

All these worthless doctorates who have nothing useful to say other
than to make a mess of basic astronomical principles.It was not the
presence of astrologers and idiotic mathematicians but rather the
absence of astronomers who will restore to humanity the great
insights that were lost for the last few centuries.

You numbskulls sealed your own fate by believing the 24 hour noon
cycle is equable and if you are too stupid to support your own garbage
then do not bother me -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

> Occasionally, some references will start with the simplification of
> assuming a perfectly circular and uniform orbit for the Earth, as an
> approximation, to explain the relation between Earth's synodic day of
> 24 hours and the sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
> Sometimes they will even fail to point out that this is a
> simplification, thus over-simplifying.
>
> But that does not mean that a star does not return to the meridian in
> 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
>
> And since the Solar System is heliocentric, with the Earth going
> around the Sun once a year, to keep pace with the "dial" on the 24
> hour clock - with the average apparent position of the Sun from Earth
> making a full circle around the Earth in a year - the "hand" of the
> clock, to keep days coming at an average of one every 24 hours has to
> run a little faster. So the Earth's uniform axial rotation gives it a
> rotation period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
>
> Starting from this, one can then appreciate the causes of the Equation
> of Time.
>
> One cause is that the Earth's orbit is an ellipse, with the result
> that Kepler's Third Law makes its speed in moving along that ellipse
> unequal. (Earth's orbit is so near a circle in shape, though, that the
> Ptolemaic "deferent" at the other focus of the ellipse is a very good
> approximation.)
>
> Another cause is the fact that the rotational axis of the Earth is not
> exactly perpendicular to the plane of the Earth's orbit around the
> Sun. (If it were, that would be a concidence - just like a calendar
> year of exactly 365 days!)
>
> At the equinoxes and the solstices, this has no effect, but between
> them, the direction of the Sun from the Earth is not exactly what one
> would expect in order to compensate for the uniform axial rotation of
> 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds and yield the 24 hour day. So the
> Sun does not coincide with the mechanical clock for that cause as
> well.
>
> The combination of these two factors yields the Equation of Time.
>
> We start from that which *is* uniform, the axial rotation of the Earth
> when compared to the stars, and that which is regular in its period,
> although not perfectly uniform, the revolution of the Earth around the
> Sun, and proceed from these simple bases to the complexity of the
> actual daily cycle of the Sun in the sky.
>
> Perhaps you may feel this approach is "backwards", but it is the one
> that makes the mathematics more simple to follow, and it is
> mathematics that one needs to calculate accurate ephemerides. And this
> does not make astrologers of astronomers.
>
> John Savard

Date: 04 Jul 2007 16:52:23
From: McQ
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote:

>You numbskulls sealed your own fate by believing the 24 hour noon
>cycle is equable and if you are too stupid to support your own garbage
>then do not bother me -

So...what is this "fate"? What are the consequences going to be by
looking at my watch and saying "It's almost 12:00pm again today; time
for lunch"?

What is your obssesion with this? What are you being cheated out
of?

McQ

Date: 01 Jul 2007 09:42:13
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

In article <1183230306.364285.48020@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:

> I know that there are a number of people these days who do criticize
> modern science for its lack of feeling. Generally, they are arts
> students in colleges, and are interested in things like
> Deconstructionism.

Criticising science for its "lack of feeling" is as stupid as criticising
art for being "unrealistic". Or to criticise a wrench because it's not
good for hammering in a nail, or criticising a hammer because it's no good
for screwing in a bolt.

Different tools have different uses. The purpose of science is to
tell us how things really are, rather than to tell us something pleasant
or to entertain us.

> I think that reason and feeling both have their place in life, but
> science does not do its work well if it becomes more subjective and
> less logical.
>
> John Savard
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 30 Jun 2007 16:11:55
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jun 30, 2:27 am, jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard)
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:01:50 -0000, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >I guess people are not just intelligent enough to recognise that axial
> >rotation of the Earth was never determined by clocks
>
> While one of the things we want to use clocks for is to tell us when to
> eat breakfast and when it is bedtime - for which the clocks should keep
> pace with the axial rotation of the Earth in relation to the Sun -
> they're also used for other purposes.
>
> People studying how long chemical reactions take, or the dynamics of
> moving bodies, or any other process that takes place in time, need a
> uniform scale of time, so that if something takes 48.3 seconds to
> happen, it will take 48.3 seconds whether it is morning or afternoon,
> and whether it is spring or fall.
>
> The leap second isn't pretentious, it's an attempt to satisfy *both*
> conflicting goals.
>
> John Savardhttp://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

You are a mathematician who knows no better,many like you have
dominated astronomy for the few centuries since the unfortunate
Flamsteed/Newton era introduced astrological reasoning into Copernican
heliocentricity.

Mathematical logic has no feeling but astronomy is full of it insofar
as we are all astronomers by virtue of living by and with the axial
and orbital motions of the Earth.The wonderful expression of Pascal
that mathematicians make themselves look ridiculous is borne out in
this era where only those touched by insanity believe in
relativity,time travel and the staple of rubbish fed to people for the
last century under the guise of 'astronomy'.

Astronomy was always a gift,not just a magnification exercise but as
an adventure suited to those who have developed their intutive
intelligence and can feel what it means to be an astronomer -

"These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and
very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and
justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able
to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles
are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an
endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one
glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain
degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that
men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to
treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves
ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms,
which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that
the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and
without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men,
and only a few can feel it."

Date: 04 Jul 2007 00:59:55
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> Nobody appears to have the intelligence to enjoy how the average 24
> hour day was transfered to a 'constant ' axial cycle without tying the
> clock directly as a physical manifestation of axial rotation.The
> equalising noon correction (Equation of Time) which formely kept one
> 24 hour day elapsing into the next 24 hour day simply keeps the axial
> cycle constant as expressed a by 4 minute equals 1 degree of
> terrestrial longitude and geographical seperation.
.
> I will wait for people who have the neccessary intelligence to
> appreciate what is so wonderful about the true astronomical principles
> and what is so damaging about a concept which believes that the
> physical noon cycle is 24 hours exactly .
.
You are correct that the physical noon cycle is not 24 hours exactly.

There is no rotation in nature in our Solar System that has an exact
uniform period of 24 hours.

Astronomers know this. They know that 24 hours is only the average,
over the course of a year, of the natural noon cycle.

Occasionally, some references will start with the simplification of
assuming a perfectly circular and uniform orbit for the Earth, as an
approximation, to explain the relation between Earth's synodic day of
24 hours and the sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
Sometimes they will even fail to point out that this is a
simplification, thus over-simplifying.

But that does not mean that a star does not return to the meridian in
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

And since the Solar System is heliocentric, with the Earth going
around the Sun once a year, to keep pace with the "dial" on the 24
hour clock - with the average apparent position of the Sun from Earth
making a full circle around the Earth in a year - the "hand" of the
clock, to keep days coming at an average of one every 24 hours has to
run a little faster. So the Earth's uniform axial rotation gives it a
rotation period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

Starting from this, one can then appreciate the causes of the Equation
of Time.

One cause is that the Earth's orbit is an ellipse, with the result
that Kepler's Third Law makes its speed in moving along that ellipse
unequal. (Earth's orbit is so near a circle in shape, though, that the
Ptolemaic "deferent" at the other focus of the ellipse is a very good
approximation.)

Another cause is the fact that the rotational axis of the Earth is not
exactly perpendicular to the plane of the Earth's orbit around the
Sun. (If it were, that would be a concidence - just like a calendar
year of exactly 365 days!)

At the equinoxes and the solstices, this has no effect, but between
them, the direction of the Sun from the Earth is not exactly what one
would expect in order to compensate for the uniform axial rotation of
23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds and yield the 24 hour day. So the
Sun does not coincide with the mechanical clock for that cause as
well.

The combination of these two factors yields the Equation of Time.

We start from that which *is* uniform, the axial rotation of the Earth
when compared to the stars, and that which is regular in its period,
although not perfectly uniform, the revolution of the Earth around the
Sun, and proceed from these simple bases to the complexity of the
actual daily cycle of the Sun in the sky.

Perhaps you may feel this approach is "backwards", but it is the one
that makes the mathematics more simple to follow, and it is
mathematics that one needs to calculate accurate ephemerides. And this
does not make astrologers of astronomers.

John Savard

Date: 03 Jul 2007 11:28:41
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Nobody appears to have the intelligence to enjoy how the average 24
hour day was transfered to a 'constant ' axial cycle without tying the
clock directly as a physical manifestation of axial rotation.The
equalising noon correction (Equation of Time) which formely kept one
24 hour day elapsing into the next 24 hour day simply keeps the axial
cycle constant as expressed a by 4 minute equals 1 degree of
terrestrial longitude and geographical seperation.

I will wait for people who have the neccessary intelligence to
appreciate what is so wonderful about the true astronomical principles
and what is so damaging about a concept which believes that the
physical noon cycle is 24 hours exactly .

On Jul 3, 1:16 pm, jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard)
wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:59:55 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote, in part:
>
> > John Savard <jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
> > > This is a premise that will not be accepted by astronomers. Newton did
> > > successfully show that the heavens *can* be understood by the laws which
> > > govern moving bodies on the Earth. So we start with simple regular time
> > > in order to disentangle the behavior of natural physical systems.
> > And conversely of course: to Newton true time
> > was the time scale in which Newton's equations hold true,
>
> Indeed. But this was not a circular definition, because this time scale,
> as given by mechanical clocks, already existed.
>
> We cannot, of course, change or control time (aside from time dilation,
> of course); but we can, legitimately, choose which time scale is useful
> or interesting to us. We live in a mechanized society; this may be
> deplored for some reasons, but that has meant that for us the most
> practical time scale is the one in which the uniform rotations of our
> turbines and dynamos are most naturally measured.
>
> John Savardhttp://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 30 Jun 2007 15:51:37
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jun 30, 2:12 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> >I guess people are not just intelligent enough to recognise that...
> >...an exercise in pretension...
> >...low on intelligence...
>
> Can the attitude, flamer. Personal attacks are a sure indication
> that the poster is wrong on either evidence or logic and knows it.
>

It is a straightforward and accurate comment supported by the
treatise of Huygens - people who believe that you can accurately
determine the rotation of the Earth using an external reference or
rather require 'leap second' corrections have no appreciation for
heliocentric reasoning.

> If you have a valid argument, present it. Don't assume that the
> reader will accept insults and ad hominems as a substitution for
> logical arguments based on evidence.
>

If any of you were any good I would not have to come here and show you
basic astronomical principles such as how clocks,the axial cycle and
terrestrial longitudes remain in sync at 4 minutes/1 degree,15 degrees/
1 hour making precisely 24 hours/360 degrees in total..

The 24 hour is a human creation via the Equation of Time correction
(check Huygens !),basic logic,do you hear,basic logic dictates that to
determine axial rotation by an external reference dictated by the
human invention such as the 24 hour day borders on ridiculous.

> (I am seriously considering killfiling all Google Groups posters.
> Feel free to respond with further abuse if you wish to make my
> decision a lot easier to make.)
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>

You insult yourselves,too dumb to know why 'leap second corrections'
are pretensious nonsense given that they have been making 86 400 leap
second corrections since antiquity.

Date: 01 Jul 2007 09:41:45
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>
>> >I guess people are not just intelligent enough to recognise that...
>> >...an exercise in pretension...
>> >...low on intelligence...
>>
>> Can the attitude, flamer. Personal attacks are a sure indication
>> that the poster is wrong on either evidence or logic and knows it.
>>
>> If you have a valid argument, present it. Don't assume that the
>> reader will accept insults and ad hominems as a substitution for
>> logical arguments based on evidence.
>
>If any of you were any good I would not have to come here and show you

>> (I am seriously considering killfiling all Google Groups posters.
>> Feel free to respond with further abuse if you wish to make my
>> decision a lot easier to make.)

>You insult yourselves,too dumb to know why (snip)

Well, I can certainly killfile *this* flamer. And maybe all
Gooogle Group isers as well.

*PLONK*

Date: 28 Jun 2007 21:33:39
From: mike
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

Sam Wormley wrote:
> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
>
> SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE REFERENCE
>
>
> SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
> OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
> 61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
> Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
> FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
> Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
>
> Paris, 28 June 2007
>
>
> Bulletin C 34
>
> To authorities responsible
> for the measurement and
> distribution of time
>
>
>
> INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
>
>
> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007.
> The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
> International Atomic Time TAI is :
>
> from 2006 January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
>
> Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of December
> or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed
> every
> six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm that
> there
> will be no time step at the next possible date.
>
>
> Daniel GAMBIS
> Director
> Earth Orientation Center of
> IERS
> Observatoire de Paris, France

Interesting.
Is there a simple explanation...like simple enough for a curious electrical
engineer to understand...of the reasons why we have two time standards,
and if the difference is adjustable, why we wouldn't want them to be the
same number, -33 seconds is a lot...
and why the time resolution of the difference is only a second?
And if I've got a meeting, which one should I use to set my watch so's I'm
on time?
And if I look at the time readout on my GPS, how does that relate to the
above
two standard times?
I'm drifting further off topic, but I never understood how one could
"eyeball the sky" and come up with high-accuracy time.
mike

--
Return address is VALID!
Bunch-O-Stuff Forsale Here:
http://mike.liveline.de/sale.html

Date: 01 Jul 2007 18:13:11
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote:
> The daily cycle where Sunday turns into Monday and Monday into Tuesday
> ect happened because brilliant people created a structure out of the
> observation that the natural cycle could be equalised or averaged
> against the annual cycle.I simply cannot account for why an entire
> group of people would choose to believe that the natural cycle is 24
> hours exactly or try to concoct a 'sidereal' story with no sense nor
> meaning.
.
Yes, the natural cycle is not 24 hours exactly; people who use
sundials are familiar with this. Some explanations of the Earth's
motions may leave out the details, but the Equation of Time is quite
familiar to contemporary astronomers.

Over the course of a year, as you point out, the length of a day can
be averaged out.

The length of the year is a constant; this is a natural cycle that
always has the same length. This cycle, of course, is not an exact
multiple of the 24 hour day, again, as you have noted.

But while the cycle of the Sun in our sky is a cycle that only
averages to 24 hours, if you add one to the (uneven) number of 24 hour
days in the year, to get a shorter cycle, representing the Earth's own
motion independently of its orbit, then it is found that, by a
mechanical clock, the transit of a star overhead at a given location
recurs at a regular interval. This same interval applies at all times
of the year.

This is a fact, and it has nothing to do with astrology. Astrology
imbues the positions of the planets against the constellations with
meaning having to do with people's fortunes or their personalities.
But the stars are real objects, and so noting their positions is not
astrological in nature.

The sidereal day is not some kind of mistake. It is a basic, regular,
natural cycle. From this natural cycle, and the fixed cycle of the
year, but given the Earth's elliptical orbit, the solar day that only
averages to 24 hours over the course of the year comes into being. We
look at the course of the Earth in the heavens, and divide it into its
parts, each of which is a regular motion, to understand the whole.

Whatever your reasons may be for objecting to this, it works, and it
is understandable.

John Savard

Date: 01 Jul 2007 09:35:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Jun 30, 9:11 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote, in part:
>
>
>
> > What is it about clocks that is so difficult to understand ?.They are
> > simple devices that maintain a standard pace and the technical
> > difficulties for Harrison and the other clockmakers was simply to get
> > a clock to maintain that standard pace originating from timekeeping
> > astronomers based on principles that are so well known that it is
> > nearly impossible to miss the hows and whys of the 24 hour day,clocks
> > and so on -
> .
> > 'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much
> > they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.'
> .
> > All great astronomers should be careful in recognising that in drawing
> > a correlation between the axial cycle and the 24 hour day that the pre-
> > Copernican average 24 hour day transfered to the heliocentric axial
> > rotational cycle as a 'constant' is maintained as a principle via the
> > Equation of Time principles .
> .
> > It is unusual to come across an entire group of people who dislike how
> > the daily cycle is derived via the Equation of Time and even how the
> > daily cycles elapse into each other but then again these are the same
> > people who convince themselves that clocks have magical properties and
> > measure a time 'dimension'.
>
> .
> Yes, clocks don't grasp a "time dimension". They simply are devices
> that, because they do as far as possible, the same thing over and
> over, keep a standard pace.
>

In this day and age there are few people who really care about the
silliness of the last century where a 'relativity' concept emerged
that matched conclusions based on a science fiction novel by H.G.
Wells -

"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space"

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

Should people ,at least responsible people,wish to know how things got
that bad,they can simply look at the original 'defintions' of Newton
and especially the convoluted way he tried to 'define' the Equation of
Time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. "

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm

> As for the Equation of Time, how is it obtained? Is it simply found by
> comparing a clock with a sundial for a year, and keeping a table of
> the differences?

The Equation of Time correction is an astronomical jewel that makes so
much possible yet nobody defends it or the unknown people who created
the reasoning behind it insofar as it requires only the basic
acknowledgement that the daily noon cycles are unequal.

The ' sidereal time' cult phenomena and its attendent 'leap second'
junk is all based on the belief that noon cycles are always 24 hours -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

Or, after that _has_ been done, to obtain what the
> result of the equation of time should be, are there things in the
> heavens that behave simply, like our clocks, whose combined motion
> leads to a way to derive the Equation of Time as a mathematical
> formula, from our theory of the motions of the Earth in the heavens?
>

Again,your empirical cult theory of the axial and orbital motions of
the Earth based on timekeeping are vacuous and in this era where
decisions on global climate are being influenced by people who cannot
even manage the basic observation known to our ancestors,it shades off
into being dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

The daily cycle where Sunday turns into Monday and Monday into Tuesday
ect happened because brilliant people created a structure out of the
observation that the natural cycle could be equalised or averaged
against the annual cycle.I simply cannot account for why an entire
group of people would choose to believe that the natural cycle is 24
hours exactly or try to concoct a 'sidereal' story with no sense nor
meaning.

> While I believe the latter is the case, the way I would derive the
> Equation of Time makes use of what you refer to as the errors of
> Newton and Flamsteed. If there is a theoretical derivation of the
> Equation of Time based on valid heliocentric reasoning, what is it?
>
> John Savard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If it be that there is no interest in how we inherit the concept of 24
hour day,how these days mesh seamlessly with each other and how
Copernican heliocentricity provided the principles which keep clocks
in sync with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees then there is
little I can do about it.It is an absolute breach of responsible
conduct and with an authority that sanctions an alternative approach
to clocks and the axial cycle insofar as the dominant principles do
not recognise the daily cycle as unequal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png) it can only mean that vital areas
such as global climate based on the relationship between the axial and
orbital cycles will remain in a dire state.

Many have found themselves inside the empirical cistern rather than
participating in the fountain that is astronomy,once the astrological
borders of that cistern are thrown out and a breath of fresh air
returns to the astronomical discipline that has withered in less
capable hands,astronomy will become vibrant again,free of the stifling
pretension that takes its name and open to nall people.

Date: 30 Jun 2007 12:11:26
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

oriel36 wrote, in part:
> What is it about clocks that is so difficult to understand ?.They are
> simple devices that maintain a standard pace and the technical
> difficulties for Harrison and the other clockmakers was simply to get
> a clock to maintain that standard pace originating from timekeeping
> astronomers based on principles that are so well known that it is
> nearly impossible to miss the hows and whys of the 24 hour day,clocks
> and so on -
.
> 'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much
> they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.'
.
> All great astronomers should be careful in recognising that in drawing
> a correlation between the axial cycle and the 24 hour day that the pre-
> Copernican average 24 hour day transfered to the heliocentric axial
> rotational cycle as a 'constant' is maintained as a principle via the
> Equation of Time principles .
.
> It is unusual to come across an entire group of people who dislike how
> the daily cycle is derived via the Equation of Time and even how the
> daily cycles elapse into each other but then again these are the same
> people who convince themselves that clocks have magical properties and
> measure a time 'dimension'.
.
Yes, clocks don't grasp a "time dimension". They simply are devices
that, because they do as far as possible, the same thing over and
over, keep a standard pace.

As for the Equation of Time, how is it obtained? Is it simply found by
comparing a clock with a sundial for a year, and keeping a table of
the differences? Or, after that _has_ been done, to obtain what the
result of the equation of time should be, are there things in the
heavens that behave simply, like our clocks, whose combined motion
leads to a way to derive the Equation of Time as a mathematical
formula, from our theory of the motions of the Earth in the heavens?

While I believe the latter is the case, the way I would derive the
Equation of Time makes use of what you refer to as the errors of
Newton and Flamsteed. If there is a theoretical derivation of the
Equation of Time based on valid heliocentric reasoning, what is it?

John Savard

Date: 29 Jun 2007 16:38:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

mike wrote:

>Is there a simple explanation...like simple enough for a curious electrical
>engineer to understand...of the reasons why we have two time standards,
>and if the difference is adjustable, why we wouldn't want them to be the
>same number, -33 seconds is a lot...

Some folks really *really* don't want a time system that has
an occasional minute that is 59 seconds or 61 seconds long.

Other folks really *really* don't want a time system that keeps
drifting farther and farther away from the rotation of the
earth, so that eventuall the sun will be overhead at midnight.

So each group get their own time scale.

>and why the time resolution of the difference is only a second?

That second group of folks had to decide whether to accept an error
that is a large fraction of a second or to accept having to reset
their clocks a lot more often. The first option won.

>And if I've got a meeting, which one should I use to set my watch
>so's I'm on time?

EDT. unless your headers aren't telling the truth about what timezone
you are in.

>And if I look at the time readout on my GPS, how does that relate
>to the above two standard times?

Your GPS should be set to display EDT as well. It shouldn't be
showing the internal GPS time on the display

>I'm drifting further off topic, but I never understood how one could
>"eyeball the sky" and come up with high-accuracy time.

One can locate a GPS satellite with good accuracy and then watch
to see the exact moment a star goes behind it. I am sure that there
are other methods I don't know about.

Date: 29 Jun 2007 17:43:11
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

In article <DvednahZBPrsqBjbRVn_vw@giganews.com >,
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

> Some folks really *really* don't want a time system that has
> an occasional minute that is 59 seconds or 61 seconds long.
>
> Other folks really *really* don't want a time system that keeps
> drifting farther and farther away from the rotation of the
> earth, so that eventuall the sun will be overhead at midnight.
>
> So each group get their own time scale.

Nah, they could both agree on just using the UT time scale. It always
has 60 seconds per minute, and it doesn't drift away from the rotation
of the Earth since it's defined by the rotation of the Earth.

But then we have the third kind of folks who really *really* *REALLY*
******REALLY****** don't want a slightly nonuniform time scale.... :-)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 28 Jun 2007 22:35:56
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

mike wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
>>
>> SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE
>> REFERENCE
>>
>>
>> SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
>> OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
>> 61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
>> Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
>> FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
>> Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
>>
>> Paris, 28 June 2007
>>
>>
>> Bulletin C 34
>>
>> To authorities responsible
>> for the measurement and
>> distribution of time
>>
>>
>>
>> INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
>>
>>
>> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007.
>> The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
>> International Atomic Time TAI is : from 2006
>> January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
>>
>> Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of
>> December
>> or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed
>> every
>> six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm that
>> there
>> will be no time step at the next possible date.
>>
>>
>> Daniel GAMBIS
>> Director
>> Earth Orientation Center
>> of IERS
>> Observatoire de Paris, France
>
> Interesting.
> Is there a simple explanation...like simple enough for a curious electrical
> engineer to understand...of the reasons why we have two time standards,
> and if the difference is adjustable, why we wouldn't want them to be the
> same number, -33 seconds is a lot...
> and why the time resolution of the difference is only a second?
> And if I've got a meeting, which one should I use to set my watch so's I'm
> on time?
> And if I look at the time readout on my GPS, how does that relate to the
> above
> two standard times?
> I'm drifting further off topic, but I never understood how one could
> "eyeball the sky" and come up with high-accuracy time.
> mike
>

Furthermore:
GPS World, Nov 1999

UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
----+---------+-----------------+------------------------+-----

Date: 29 Jun 2007 02:20:57
From: mike
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

Sam Wormley wrote:
> mike wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
>>>
>>> SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE
>>> REFERENCE
>>>
>>>
>>> SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
>>> OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
>>> 61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
>>> Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
>>> FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
>>> Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
>>>
>>> Paris, 28 June 2007
>>>
>>>
>>> Bulletin C 34
>>>
>>> To authorities
>>> responsible
>>> for the measurement and
>>> distribution of time
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
>>>
>>>
>>> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007.
>>> The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
>>> International Atomic Time TAI is : from 2006
>>> January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
>>>
>>> Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of
>>> December
>>> or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is
>>> mailed every
>>> six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm
>>> that there
>>> will be no time step at the next possible date.
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel GAMBIS
>>> Director
>>> Earth Orientation Center
>>> of IERS
>>> Observatoire de Paris, France
>>
>> Interesting.
>> Is there a simple explanation...like simple enough for a curious
>> electrical
>> engineer to understand...of the reasons why we have two time standards,
>> and if the difference is adjustable, why we wouldn't want them to be
>> the same number, -33 seconds is a lot...
>> and why the time resolution of the difference is only a second?
>> And if I've got a meeting, which one should I use to set my watch so's
>> I'm
>> on time?
>> And if I look at the time readout on my GPS, how does that relate to
>> the above
>> two standard times?
>> I'm drifting further off topic, but I never understood how one could
>> "eyeball the sky" and come up with high-accuracy time.
>> mike
>>
>
> Furthermore:
> GPS World, Nov 1999
>
>
> UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
> ----+---------+-----------------+------------------------+-----
>

Date: 30 Jun 2007 00:23:14
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:20:57 GMT, mike <spamme9@gmail.com > wrote, in
part:

mike wrote:
> I can't imagine a group of scientists coming out of a meeting
> with a new time standard that's exactly the same as the previous
> one but offset by...I dunno, let's use... 32.184 seconds.

Well, you see, they brought in this system of timekeeping with leap
seconds some years ago. And so there have been several leap seconds
since they did. So there's a big difference, several seconds, between
today's UTC and UTC if we never had any leap seconds since we started
it.

If a new time standard was brought in, it would match with the time
standard - UTC - that people use for their clocks.

At the time the 32.184 second difference existed, that wasn't between
the new time standard and old civil time. Those matched. That was
between the new time standard and *Ephemeris Time*. This was based on
just using the SI second, rather than a longer second matching the
Earth's slower rotation. It was used because a uniform time scale was
desired for working out the motions of the planets; so this time scale,
just like today's atomic time, if no leap seconds were used, kept
falling further and further behind.

So no one had to set their clocks back by 30 seconds - and everyone
*would* have, if they used Ephemeris Time rather than the ordinary time
of day for the new standard. At the point the new standard was brought
in, the difference between Ephemeris Time and ordinary civil time was
32.184 seconds, and that's what caused the jump.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 29 Jun 2007 08:12:06
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

In article <d0_gi.1386$w2.16@trnddc01 >, mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
...........................
>> Furthermore:
>> GPS World, Nov 1999
>>
>>
>> UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
>> ----+---------+-----------------+------------------------+-----
>>

Date: 29 Jun 2007 12:03:44
From: J. J. Lodder
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote:

> I find it less understandable that the guys who invented GPS time just
> didn't use TAI but instead invented *another* time scale, GPS time,
> which they defined as exactly 19 seconds ahead of TAI (it was equal to
> UTC back then). GPS time offers no advantage at all over TAI, it's
> just another label. Perhaps the GPS engineersand just considered it
> an experiment performed at their own labs and failed to imagine that
> their GPS system some time in the future would be used worldwide?

They just wanted a tribal marker of their own,

Jan

Date: 29 Jun 2007 04:13:10
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December

mike wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
>>>>
>>>> SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE
>>>> REFERENCE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
>>>> OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
>>>> 61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
>>>> Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
>>>> FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
>>>> Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
>>>>
>>>> Paris, 28 June 2007
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bulletin C 34
>>>>
>>>> To authorities
>>>> responsible
>>>> for the measurement and
>>>> distribution of time
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December
>>>> 2007.
>>>> The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
>>>> International Atomic Time TAI is : from 2006
>>>> January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
>>>>
>>>> Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of
>>>> December
>>>> or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is
>>>> mailed every
>>>> six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm
>>>> that there
>>>> will be no time step at the next possible date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel GAMBIS
>>>> Director
>>>> Earth Orientation
>>>> Center of IERS
>>>> Observatoire de Paris, France
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>> Is there a simple explanation...like simple enough for a curious
>>> electrical
>>> engineer to understand...of the reasons why we have two time standards,
>>> and if the difference is adjustable, why we wouldn't want them to be
>>> the same number, -33 seconds is a lot...
>>> and why the time resolution of the difference is only a second?
>>> And if I've got a meeting, which one should I use to set my watch
>>> so's I'm
>>> on time?
>>> And if I look at the time readout on my GPS, how does that relate to
>>> the above
>>> two standard times?
>>> I'm drifting further off topic, but I never understood how one could
>>> "eyeball the sky" and come up with high-accuracy time.
>>> mike
>>>
>>
>> Furthermore:
>> GPS World, Nov 1999
>>
>>
>> UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
>> ----+---------+-----------------+------------------------+-----
>>

Date: 28 Jun 2007 23:58:58
From: Gene S. Berkowitz
Subject: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007

In article <d0_gi.1386$w2.16@trnddc01 >, spamme9@gmail.com says...
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > mike wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
> >>>
> >>> SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE
> >>> REFERENCE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SERVICE DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE
> >>> OBSERVATOIRE DE PARIS
> >>> 61, Av. de l'Observatoire 75014 PARIS (France)
> >>> Tel. : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 26
> >>> FAX : 33 (0) 1 40 51 22 91
> >>> Internet : services.iers@obspm.fr
> >>>
> >>> Paris, 28 June 2007
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bulletin C 34
> >>>
> >>> To authorities
> >>> responsible
> >>> for the measurement and
> >>> distribution of time
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> INFORMATION ON UTC - TAI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December 2007.
> >>> The difference between Coordinated Universal Time UTC and the
> >>> International Atomic Time TAI is : from 2006
> >>> January 1, 0h UTC, until further notice : UTC-TAI = -33 s
> >>>
> >>> Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of
> >>> December
> >>> or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is
> >>> mailed every
> >>> six months, either to announce a time step in UTC, or to confirm
> >>> that there
> >>> will be no time step at the next possible date.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Daniel GAMBIS
> >>> Director
> >>> Earth Orientation Center
> >>> of IERS
> >>> Observatoire de Paris, France
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >> Is there a simple explanation...like simple enough for a curious
> >> electrical
> >> engineer to understand...of the reasons why we have two time standards,
> >> and if the difference is adjustable, why we wouldn't want them to be
> >> the same number, -33 seconds is a lot...
> >> and why the time resolution of the difference is only a second?
> >> And if I've got a meeting, which one should I use to set my watch so's
> >> I'm
> >> on time?
> >> And if I look at the time readout on my GPS, how does that relate to
> >> the above
> >> two standard times?
> >> I'm drifting further off topic, but I never understood how one could
> >> "eyeball the sky" and come up with high-accuracy time.
> >> mike
> >>
> >
> > Furthermore:
> > GPS World, Nov 1999
> >
> >
> > UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
> > ----+---------+-----------------+------------------------+-----
> >