| |
Main
Date: 06 Sep 2007 20:45:02
From: Quadibloc
Subject: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Just picked up the latest Sky and Telescope today.
Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
the truly Nagleriest), and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
and a 100 degree field of view.
Magnification _isn't_ the only thing we're concerned about here on
this newsgroup!
John Savard
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:11:25
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 1:52 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I am at a loss to explain what has happened,to people, the rich
> astronomical heritage can hardly be set against a concept where a
> star returning to a location represents a definitive idea for axial
> and orbital motion,it merely represents a way to appreciate the 1461
> day calendrical cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
> days but nothing else.
If the positions of stars in the sky are valid as a way of
appreciating "the 1461 day calendrical cycle based on 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days", then (you must also mean) those
positions are valid as a way of isolating the Earth's orbital motion
around the Sun.
Motion is what is measured against stillness. If you measure the speed
of a car going down the road, you compare its position against places
in the road, not the distance between that car and another car that is
also moving. (Certainly, one can go from one "inertial frame" to
another, but one doesn't do this needlessly; if we have one state of
motion that represents the larger context for the motions we wish to
study, then we would stay with that state of motion. For the Solar
System, this context would be the motions of the Sun in the galaxy; as
long as we stay within the Solar System, this should be our starting
point.)
If, then, the position of the Sun, plus the reference for angles from
the Sun given by the stars (since the Sun itself rotates, and this is
a real rotation, the Sun has an equatorial bulge) is a valid state of
stillness for studying the orbital revolution of the Earth, then it is
also valid for the axial rotation of the Earth as well. And hence the
23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second axial rotation forms part of the
simple, straightforwards view of the Solar System.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 14:01:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 10, 4:10 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a
> quasi-commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
> some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature.
I had noticed this remark before, but I had not taken the time to
comment on it.
>From an Internet-centric point of view, one could note that the
talk.origins forum is one where origins are debated, so people discuss
Creationism versus Evolution from both sides there.
But that is hardly the main point that is relevant to make in this
context.
Copernicus feared, and Galileo experienced, persecution from fanatical
religious authorities for presenting heliocentric astronomy. The
mentality that led to this persecution is the very same fanatical
mentality that was later behind the opposition to the discoveries of
Charles Darwin.
Thus, I find it odd that you would honor heliocentric astronomy, and
view evolution as Communistic. But perhaps this is the very reason
that you are not content with heliocentric astronomy as it now stands,
and wish to replace it with something you find to be more consistent
with Scripture.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:04:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial
> longitudes condensed in the value of 24 hours/360 degrees is probably
> the most stable and enjoyable facets in all astronomy,it is a
> complimentary offshoot of the reasoning of Copernicus and the
> intricate transfer of the 'average' 24 hour day to a 'constant' axial
> cycle should be rightly loved by any intelligent person.It only
> depends on one observation - that the noon cycles are unequal and the
> 24 hour day is a human devised concept.
Indeed, the transfer of the 24 hour average day to a constant axial
cycle is intricate. And therefore, without the framework of the fixed
stars, and the sidereal day to start from, it is not possible to
understand it, without becoming hopelessly lost and confused. As, I
fear, you are proving.
> I am at a loss to explain what has happened,to people, the rich
> astronomical heritage can hardly be set against a concept where a
> star returning to a location represents a definitive idea for axial
> and orbital motion,it merely represents a way to appreciate the 1461
> day calendrical cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
> days but nothing else.
Astronomers did not pick "a star returning to a location" as
definitive simply because they liked the astrologers' Zodiac. It was
certainly a reasonable thing to try, because the stars are visible
signposts in the sky, and being far away, it is reasonable not to
expect them to move quickly in angular terms around the Earth.
But this concept would have been discarded, had it not been for the
fact that accurate measurements of the transits of stars
> the loss of an entire astronomical heritage over a basic
> and forgivable error -
>
> "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
> doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
> isochronical..." Flamsteed
confirm that there is no error in what Flamsteed said. The 24 hour day
is unequal, but the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second return of stars
is not, and corresponds to the operation of a mechanical clock. So we
do not have an error, but a statement of fact.
> Nobody can enjoy the riches of astronomy than contemporary imaging
> technology has to offer as it is applied to heliocentric reasoning
> while retaining a zodiacal framework yet that is exactly what the
> correlation between rotation through 360 degrees and 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds amount to.What is happening is not just wrong,it is
> dangerously wrong and the worst part is nobody feels it is their
> responsibility.
Nobody else who has enough knowledge of astronomy to begin to attempt
to understand what you are talking about is unable to understand also
that you are mistaken. That is why no one feels responsible to help
correct the situation that you are concerned about: no one believes it
exists.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 14:19:50
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 2:52 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:24 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 1:05 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only acceptable answer to the question - what is the value for
> > > axial rotation through 360 degrees ? is that it has yet to be
> > > determined.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sure it has. You could even answer it for yourself if you'd shut down
> > the computer, get outside and _actually_ look up at the sky. But I am
> > sure you will never, ever do that. ;-)
>
> The correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial
> longitudes condensed in the value of 24 hours/360 degrees is probably
> the most stable and enjoyable facets in all astronomy,it is a
> complimentary offshoot of the reasoning of Copernicus and the
> intricate transfer of the 'average' 24 hour day to a 'constant' axial
> cycle should be rightly loved by any intelligent person.It only
> depends on one observation - that the noon cycles are unequal and the
> 24 hour day is a human devised concept.
>
> I am at a loss to explain what has happened,to people, the rich
> astronomical heritage can hardly be set against a concept where a
> star returning to a location represents a definitive idea for axial
> and orbital motion,it merely represents a way to appreciate the 1461
> day calendrical cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
> days but nothing else.
>
> I cannot say what happens next,I truly believe that it is only a
> matter of shifting from a narrow view to a more comprehensive look at
> the topic to break away from the astrological of the Ra/Dec system .I
> will say nothing of the toll or the mounting pressure to get a single
> affirmation that a great tragedy has occured in Western
> civilisation,the loss of an entire astronomical heritage over a basic
> and forgivable error -
>
> "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
> doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
> isochronical..." Flamsteed
>
> Nobody can enjoy the riches of astronomy than contemporary imaging
> technology has to offer as it is applied to heliocentric reasoning
> while retaining a zodiacal framework yet that is exactly what the
> correlation between rotation through 360 degrees and 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds amount to.What is happening is not just wrong,it is
> dangerously wrong and the worst part is nobody feels it is their
> responsibility
>
> Don't you dare teach children that the 'sidereal time' justification
> for the Earth's motions is correct.
What happened, you little silly, was a thing called the "Renaissance."
I hate to tell you this, but that was when scientists embraced
empiricism, and gave up blindly following Aristotle. I'm sure you're
SHOCKED, SHOCKED.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 12:52:53
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 8:24 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 1:05 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The only acceptable answer to the question - what is the value for
> > axial rotation through 360 degrees ? is that it has yet to be
> > determined.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure it has. You could even answer it for yourself if you'd shut down
> the computer, get outside and _actually_ look up at the sky. But I am
> sure you will never, ever do that. ;-)
The correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial
longitudes condensed in the value of 24 hours/360 degrees is probably
the most stable and enjoyable facets in all astronomy,it is a
complimentary offshoot of the reasoning of Copernicus and the
intricate transfer of the 'average' 24 hour day to a 'constant' axial
cycle should be rightly loved by any intelligent person.It only
depends on one observation - that the noon cycles are unequal and the
24 hour day is a human devised concept.
I am at a loss to explain what has happened,to people, the rich
astronomical heritage can hardly be set against a concept where a
star returning to a location represents a definitive idea for axial
and orbital motion,it merely represents a way to appreciate the 1461
day calendrical cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
days but nothing else.
I cannot say what happens next,I truly believe that it is only a
matter of shifting from a narrow view to a more comprehensive look at
the topic to break away from the astrological of the Ra/Dec system .I
will say nothing of the toll or the mounting pressure to get a single
affirmation that a great tragedy has occured in Western
civilisation,the loss of an entire astronomical heritage over a basic
and forgivable error -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed
Nobody can enjoy the riches of astronomy than contemporary imaging
technology has to offer as it is applied to heliocentric reasoning
while retaining a zodiacal framework yet that is exactly what the
correlation between rotation through 360 degrees and 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds amount to.What is happening is not just wrong,it is
dangerously wrong and the worst part is nobody feels it is their
responsibility
Don't you dare teach children that the 'sidereal time' justification
for the Earth's motions is correct.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 12:24:33
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 1:05 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> The only acceptable answer to the question - what is the value for
> axial rotation through 360 degrees ? is that it has yet to be
> determined.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure it has. You could even answer it for yourself if you'd shut down
the computer, get outside and _actually_ look up at the sky. But I am
sure you will never, ever do that. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 18:05:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 6:44 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 12:11 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 4:42 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 7:14 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So,when children ask you how long it takes the Earth to rotate
> > > > through 360 degrees you tell them .
>
> > > Same thing I always have: "23 hours, 4 minutes, 56 seconds" _at this
> > > time._
>
> > [ a little typo on your part]
>
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...
>
> > Even the geocentric astronomers knew that the noon cycles are unequal
> > hence the late 17th century fictional 'difference' between the 24 hour
> > day and the zodiacal framework expressed in terms of the Earth's
> > motions.
>
> > A genuine astronomy teacher will tell the kids the reasoning behind
> > the creation of the 24 hour cycle from the natural noon cycle,after
> > explaining how Copernicus isolated the axial cycle as a principle,the
> > teacher will then show to his delighted students how the brilliant
> > timekeeping astronomers transfered the 'average' 24 hour cycle to
> > terrestrial longitudes and treated the daily cycle as 'constant.The
> > Equation of Time correction which kept the 24 hour cycles elapsing
> > seamlessly into the next 24 hour cycle was conveniently applied to the
> > axial cycle as a constant.
>
> > As axial rotation has never been isolated,the teacher's correct
> > response is that the answer has yet to emerge,maybe even one of these
> > students will engage in that most difficult task.
>
> Don't be silly. It's not that hard for _children_ to understand:
>
> The Sidereal day is 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds long. That
> represents the current rotation rate of the earth.
>
> However, since the earth is moving along in its orbit as well as
> rotating on its axis, it takes a little longer to place the sun back
> overhead again. Thus, the Solar day is 24 hours.
>
> Do you dispute this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How do you dispute something with a person who dithers around with a
natural 24 hour noon cycle,even in remote antiquity they knew that no
two cycles are the same. -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
The Google newsreader has a counter which shows quite a number of
people visit s.a.a even allowing for repeated visits by the same
person.I have yet to see one person acknowledge that the noon cycles
are unequal and the process astronomers go through to determine 24
hour clock noon from variations in natural noon -
'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much
they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.'
" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12.
Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5
hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon
to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd
in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days,
a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c.
(the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that
revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to
which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is
regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation, and here you have a
Table," Huygens
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
You teach children late 17th century fiction,a concept for the
Earth's axial and orbital motion that exists only in the imagination
and it appears you are content to keep it this way.The intelligent
person recognises the Ra/Dec system as an observational convenience
and does not allow it to intrude into the reasoning behind the Earth's
motions but I have yet to see a single person adopt the correct
approach to clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes.
To be fair,most children never hear the reasoning behind 'sidereal
time' and the Earth's motions however it is the backdrop against which
the concept is promoted where the real problems exist.People who are
championed as benefactors to humanity live in an imaginative world and
it is damaging civilisation never mind astronomy,the ability to create
whatever story neccessary to reach what conclusion is desired is
applicable to all spheres of life,it is unfortunate that it was
introduced to astronomy via Flamsteed/Newton.
The only acceptable answer to the question - what is the value for
axial rotation through 360 degrees ? is that it has yet to be
determined.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 10:44:33
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 12:11 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 4:42 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 7:14 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > So,when children ask you how long it takes the Earth to rotate
> > > through 360 degrees you tell them .
>
> > Same thing I always have: "23 hours, 4 minutes, 56 seconds" _at this
> > time._
>
> [ a little typo on your part]
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...
>
> Even the geocentric astronomers knew that the noon cycles are unequal
> hence the late 17th century fictional 'difference' between the 24 hour
> day and the zodiacal framework expressed in terms of the Earth's
> motions.
>
> A genuine astronomy teacher will tell the kids the reasoning behind
> the creation of the 24 hour cycle from the natural noon cycle,after
> explaining how Copernicus isolated the axial cycle as a principle,the
> teacher will then show to his delighted students how the brilliant
> timekeeping astronomers transfered the 'average' 24 hour cycle to
> terrestrial longitudes and treated the daily cycle as 'constant.The
> Equation of Time correction which kept the 24 hour cycles elapsing
> seamlessly into the next 24 hour cycle was conveniently applied to the
> axial cycle as a constant.
>
> As axial rotation has never been isolated,the teacher's correct
> response is that the answer has yet to emerge,maybe even one of these
> students will engage in that most difficult task.
Don't be silly. It's not that hard for _children_ to understand:
The Sidereal day is 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds long. That
represents the current rotation rate of the earth.
However, since the earth is moving along in its orbit as well as
rotating on its axis, it takes a little longer to place the sun back
overhead again. Thus, the Solar day is 24 hours.
Do you dispute this?
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 10:11:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 4:42 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 7:14 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So,when children ask you how long it takes the Earth to rotate
> > through 360 degrees you tell them .
>
> Same thing I always have: "23 hours, 4 minutes, 56 seconds" _at this
> time._
[ a little typo on your part]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Even the geocentric astronomers knew that the noon cycles are unequal
hence the late 17th century fictional 'difference' between the 24 hour
day and the zodiacal framework expressed in terms of the Earth's
motions.
A genuine astronomy teacher will tell the kids the reasoning behind
the creation of the 24 hour cycle from the natural noon cycle,after
explaining how Copernicus isolated the axial cycle as a principle,the
teacher will then show to his delighted students how the brilliant
timekeeping astronomers transfered the 'average' 24 hour cycle to
terrestrial longitudes and treated the daily cycle as 'constant.The
Equation of Time correction which kept the 24 hour cycles elapsing
seamlessly into the next 24 hour cycle was conveniently applied to the
axial cycle as a constant.
As axial rotation has never been isolated,the teacher's correct
response is that the answer has yet to emerge,maybe even one of these
students will engage in that most difficult task.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 10:00:18
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 3:17 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Within the next few days,the counter motion of orbital orientation
> > will bring the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary in line with
> > the geographical axis and for a brief period the hemispherical
> > differences of seasons and daylight/darkness asymmetry will disappear
> > -
>
> Unfortunately, the coming of the Vernal Equinox has already been
> predicted by establishment astronomers using their "astrological
> geometry"...
>
> which means that, although it _will_ come on schedule (and you do not
> run the risk of being stoned to death as a false prophet) its arrival
> on schedule will not constitute evidence that the Earth's axis
> precesses once a year and that the testimony of the star Polaris to
> the contrary is inadmissible because you say so.
>
> John Savard
The images from Uranus determine a discrete motion seperate to axial
rotation and orientation -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
You are a mathematician and just do not have a feel for what is
occuring and especially within the next few days as that counter
motion is reflected in the alignment of the solar radiation/orbital
shadow boundary with the polar axis.You,as representative of your
colleagues, just do not have enough geometric sense even with the
supplied images and there is nothing I can do about that.I concede
that the latitudinal pivoting motion of the SR/OS boundary is
difficult to put into context of orbital path and dynamics but it
comes with time and familiarity -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2006/images/pr20060317b_b.jpg
In its simplest form and the one I enjoy most is the easy to
understand concept where the Earth does not keep its same face to the
Sun but turns slowly through 360 degrees over the course of an annual
orbit.You failed to understand this by using a false analogy but I
would gladly allow another participant to explain to you exactly how
the change in orbital orientation works with orbital dynamics.
It is a 100% geometric certainty that the counter motion exists
insofar as its longitudinal change is registered as variations in the
natural noon cycle.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 08:42:48
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 7:14 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> So,when children ask you how long it takes the Earth to rotate
> through 360 degrees you tell them .
Same thing I always have: "23 hours, 4 minutes, 56 seconds" _at this
time._
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 07:17:28
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Within the next few days,the counter motion of orbital orientation
> will bring the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary in line with
> the geographical axis and for a brief period the hemispherical
> differences of seasons and daylight/darkness asymmetry will disappear
> -
Unfortunately, the coming of the Vernal Equinox has already been
predicted by establishment astronomers using their "astrological
geometry"...
which means that, although it _will_ come on schedule (and you do not
run the risk of being stoned to death as a false prophet) its arrival
on schedule will not constitute evidence that the Earth's axis
precesses once a year and that the testimony of the star Polaris to
the contrary is inadmissible because you say so.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 07:11:16
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 16, 3:56 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > And that explanation works _very well_, because astronomers know which
> > way to point their telescopes.
> The astrologers certainly think so -
>
> http://www.astrologyclub.org/articles/ecliptic/ecliptic.htm
>
> Give them a telescope and then everybody is happy.
Thank you for that URL: I actually was amused by it!
The facts about the Solar System on that page are sound, but what was
amusing was how its author noted that the system of co-ordinates used
by astronomers, that of Right Ascension and Declination, is based not
on the ecliptic plane, centered on the Sun, but on the Earth's axis.
This inconveniences astronomers in a way, since they have to issue new
star atlases every so often for a revised co-ordinate system; the
change from 1950.0 to 2000.0 would just involve adding a fraction of a
degree to longitude in an ecliptic system, but is more complicated in
R.A. and Dec.. The reason, of course, that astronomers use the R.A.
and Declination system is because, by corresponding to the motions of
the Earth, it also corresponds to the axes of motion of an
equatorially-mounted telescope.
Even so, it was worth a chuckle for the astrologer to note that it
makes about as much sense to say astrology is "unscientific" because
an astrological chart shows the directions to the planets from Earth,
when astronomers use an Earth-centered coordinate system; does that
make astronomy invalid?
Of course, astrology is nonsense for other, better reasons. It is
possible for worse nonsense than astrology to exist. One example:
Many years ago, back in the days when computers were made from vacuum
tubes, a pile of data about the weather and human events was fed to a
computer, to be compared with the motions of the Solar System, to find
any correlations that indicated if astrology was valid.
Only one correlation was found - between rainstorms in Montreal,
Quebec, and certain phenomena of the moons of Jupiter.
The source where I read it commented that one should not assume the
moons of Jupiter caused the storms; perhaps the storms moved the moons
of Jupiter. That would be all right as a joke, but not as a serious
hypothesis. Coincidence, yes. But while correlation itself does not
imply causation, side information can tell us which directions of
causation are reasonable.
The factors that cause storms on the Earth are largely understood, but
there is room for small influences, and storms cannot be predicted
like clockwork decades in advance. On the other hand, the planets and
their satellites follow laws that are *fully* understood, thanks to
Newton (and, of course, in the case of Mercury, at least, Einstein)
and are predictable for decades in advance.
Nothing but gravity and Newton's laws is causing the motions of the
moons of Jupiter. No deviation from them is observed due to any
influence from Montreal weather. So, while assuming astrology instead
of coincidence is silly, reversing the direction of causality from
that of astrology is *even sillier*.
Another invalid argument against astrology, popular in the Middle
Ages, was that if human moods and emotions were influenced by an
outside cause, such as the planets, then humans would not truly have
free will, and thus they would not be responsible for their actions.
This would be in contrast to the moral message of Scripture, which
emphasizes that humans are very definitely responsible for their
actions.
As it happens, about half of all human beings between the ages of,
say, 14 and 48 are reminded on an approximately monthly basis that
their moods can be influenced by an external factor, having to do with
the biological processes at work in their bodies, and they reject the
notion that this makes them automatons rather than humans with free
will.
Just because astrology *is* bunk doesn't mean that its detractors
can't get a bit over-enthusiastic and advance arguments the falsity of
which is even more blatant than the falsity of astrology.
> Copernicus could write to the Pope * knowing that he would have a
> basic working knowledge of astronomy but today there is not the
> slightest sign that people have a basic grasp of astronomy,
Yes: this is why some web sites, explaining the motions of the solar
system, put aside the Equation of Time in explaining that our Solar
System is heliocentric, because this would be too complicated for many
ordinary laypeople at the beginning of explaining astronomical matters
to them.
> all of it
> is directed towards magnification with no room for putting images in
> context of heliocentric reasoning or rather an appreciation of the
> Earth's motions.I can say that the problem is the optical guys not
> taking a wider view of the discipine hence the lapse into an
> astrological framework and conclusions built on it.I do not see this
> as an assault by mathematicians on my astronomical heritage,I see it
> as laziness of people who I know would make great astronomers by
> moving material forward rather than letting it slip into wayward
> notions supplied by mathematicians.
But I cannot relate to your objections to "an astrological framework".
The stars are there, they do not move quickly, and so they help us as
guideposts in untangling the motions in our Solar System. It is by
making use of every resource we have to aid our understanding, and by
applying mathematics - which is a disciplined and logical subject, and
which leads away from, rather than towards, waywardness - that we
achieve understanding.
You offer no good reason for throwing away our understanding, and
starting over again, but with blinders on. Because our present
understanding works - you may denounce "empiricists", but getting the
right answer usually means one is on the right track - and you offer
nothing but your esthetic distaste for taking cognizance of the starry
background of the night as a reason for starting over. Nothing. No
evidence that our understanding is flawed.
Not a thing in the passage from Huygens, not a thing in the animation
of a retrogade, not a thing in the series of photos of Uranus,
contradicts in the slightest our present understanding of the Solar
System; all these "evidences" you have offered do nothing to the
established edifice of astronomy but buttress and support it!
> Pascal expresses the more appropriate approach and I concur that it
> is better to fault the dismal astronomical situation due to a too
> narrow view than anything else -
>
> "When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
> errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
> side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
> him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
> sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
> sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
> not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
> man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
> in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
> always true." Pascal
If there is a side on which the existing understanding of the Solar
System is in error, you have failed to indicate that side. So far, all
that anyone here has heard is that you object to how we understand the
Solar System, for some reason that we cannot understand.
As long as you decline to face the empiricists head-on, and say that
your conception has the planets doing *this*, while their conception
has the planets doing *that*, it is hard to relate to your objections.
You actually have tried to do this - by offering certain images as
evidence for your claims, but since they are in fact perfectly
consistent with the existing view, and do not contradict it, we can
but scratch our heads, and wonder what you can be thinking. The only
conclusion that seems open to us is that you have misunderstood the
existing edifice of astronomy, reading in to it a contradiction of
Copernicus and Kepler that is not there.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 20:23:21
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On 2007-09-16, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
>
> Many years ago, back in the days when computers were made from vacuum
> tubes, a pile of data about the weather and human events was fed to a
> computer, to be compared with the motions of the Solar System, to find
> any correlations that indicated if astrology was valid.
>
> Only one correlation was found - between rainstorms in Montreal,
> Quebec, and certain phenomena of the moons of Jupiter.
>
> The source where I read it commented that one should not assume the
> moons of Jupiter caused the storms; perhaps the storms moved the moons
> of Jupiter. That would be all right as a joke, but not as a serious
> hypothesis. Coincidence, yes. But while correlation itself does not
> imply causation, side information can tell us which directions of
> causation are reasonable.
To be scientifically rigorous it is also necessary to consider
another case: one event may not cause the other, but they may turn
out to have a common cause. I have to admit I can't see any factor
that would affect both the motions of Jovian moons and the weather
in Montreal and I find the possibility of one existing unlikely,
but it is always a possibility and not so easily dismissed.
Similarly, I can't give any mechanism that would give any credibility
to astrology, not that I would want to. Leave it to the proponents
of that 'discipline' to come up with a scientifically valid
explanation for their beliefs.
Of course, this kind of common-cause issue usually crops up in
studies where people and/or statistics are involved, leading to
big problems ensuring samples are correctly balanced and statistically
valid. I recall a study from a few years ago that announced that
having a night light in a baby's bedroom causes myopia. It turned
out to be complete nonsense: the study neglected to consider the
parents.
Myopic parents are likely to 'cause' their baby's myopia due to
their genes, and they also tend to prefer a night light due to
their own poor eyesight. One factor in the study was not inflenced
by the other, but that didn't mean that they were unconnected.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 05:31:59
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 3:56 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > You mathematical numbskulls have been living off the idea that the
> > noon cycle is 24 hours exactly is order to create a fictional
> > difference to the 'sidereal day ' -
>
> > 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. "
> > Marshall Space Flight Center.
>
> As I've noted, this paragraph merely omits the complexities of the
> Equation of Time to make the concept accessible, that because the
> Earth moves *around the Sun* once a year, the 24 hour day is not the
> same as the Earth's axial rotation.
>
> The Equation of Time is explained by the characteristics of the
> Earth's orbit not perfectly translating the uniform 23 hour, 56
> minute, and 4 second axial rotation to a regular 24 hour day, because
> the orbit is elliptical and the Earth's axis has a constant, not
> variable, inclination to the ecliptic.
>
> And that explanation works _very well_, because astronomers know which
> way to point their telescopes.
>
> John Savard
The astrologers certainly think so -
http://www.astrologyclub.org/articles/ecliptic/ecliptic.htm
Give them a telescope and then everybody is happy.
Copernicus could write to the Pope * knowing that he would have a
basic working knowledge of astronomy but today there is not the
slightest sign that people have a basic grasp of astronomy,all of it
is directed towards magnification with no room for putting images in
context of heliocentric reasoning or rather an appreciation of the
Earth's motions.I can say that the problem is the optical guys not
taking a wider view of the discipine hence the lapse into an
astrological framework and conclusions built on it.I do not see this
as an assault by mathematicians on my astronomical heritage,I see it
as laziness of people who I know would make great astronomers by
moving material forward rather than letting it slip into wayward
notions supplied by mathematicians.
Pascal expresses the more appropriate approach and I concur that it
is better to fault the dismal astronomical situation due to a too
narrow view than anything else -
"When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true." Pascal
I am grateful that you at least answered my posts but you now go your
own way.
* http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 05:14:19
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 15, 8:58 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 10:50 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It has been an absolute disgrace that I have to struggle with
> > numbskulls like yourself
>
> http://blog.kamden.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/tchachkis_air_freshe...
Presently,there is no amount of warnings directed at people regarding
climate change and the need to act and in some ways it is right and
proper,however,those warning have to be balanced by an appreciation of
the planet and its majestic motions and cycles around which all life
has evolved and is conditioned.
Within the next few days,the counter motion of orbital orientation
will bring the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary in line with
the geographical axis and for a brief period the hemispherical
differences of seasons and daylight/darkness asymmetry will disappear
-
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg
The efforts of optical astronomers like Mr Tezel in showing how the
Earth's orbital motion is isolated via Copernican reasoning or that
of the unamed astronomer who took the sequence of images of Uranus
shows what can be accomplish with just a little added effort to put
images in context.I have been promoting that facet of astronomy all
along and that one sentence you isolated is directed at numbskulls who
have no feeling for astronomy,its methods and insights.
So,when children ask you how long it takes the Earth to rotate
through 360 degrees you tell them that astronomers still have to
isolate the axial rotation of the Earth to determine the actual
value.When they ask you what Copernicus did,you show them the time
lapse footage of the Earth overtaking the outer planets which leaves
axial rotation to explain the daily cycle.Tell them how the great
timekeeping astronom ers made use of the human devised 24 hour day
cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as a 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency
I look at how the people in the era of Copernicus acknowledged his
arguments for axial and orbital motion while not destroying the
efforts of those that preceded him,dramatic though heliocentric
reasoning is from the geocentric perspective,the accumulated data was
the same for both the pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomers.It
is how they used the information that was so radical -
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm
I do mind that there appears to be nobody here who can interpret the
images of Uranus correctly and apply them to the Earth's motions in
drawing a conclusion which uses a change in orbital orientation to
account for the unequal noon cycles and much of climatology,at least
in terns of the Earth motions.In having a sense of history that a
neccessary modification to Copernican reasoning is required you have
no idea of the reverence I feel for those old astronomers who worked
with only their intellectual and intutive intelligence.
Like it or not,humanity has a new motion to consider.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 19:56:29
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> You mathematical numbskulls have been living off the idea that the
> noon cycle is 24 hours exactly is order to create a fictional
> difference to the 'sidereal day ' -
>
> 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. "
> Marshall Space Flight Center.
As I've noted, this paragraph merely omits the complexities of the
Equation of Time to make the concept accessible, that because the
Earth moves *around the Sun* once a year, the 24 hour day is not the
same as the Earth's axial rotation.
The Equation of Time is explained by the characteristics of the
Earth's orbit not perfectly translating the uniform 23 hour, 56
minute, and 4 second axial rotation to a regular 24 hour day, because
the orbit is elliptical and the Earth's axis has a constant, not
variable, inclination to the ecliptic.
And that explanation works _very well_, because astronomers know which
way to point their telescopes.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:58:09
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 10, 10:50 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> It has been an absolute disgrace that I have to struggle with
> numbskulls like yourself
http://blog.kamden.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/tchachkis_air_freshener_happy_bunny_throw_up_6684871322298_l.jpg
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:08:29
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 15, 4:19 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Your Ra/Dec system is a late 17th century observational
> > convenience but Flamsteed took it too far by physically linking the
> > Earth's axial rotation/orientation and subsequently orbital motion
> > directly to zodiacal geometry -
>
> > "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
> > doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
> > isochronical..." Flamsteed
>
> > Looking at a statement like that from Flamsteed and knowing full well
> > that you see nothing wrong with it
>
> It certainly is true that there is no iron rod extending from Polaris,
> and skewering the Earth. The only physical thing keeping the Earth's
> axis in the same direction is the conservation of angular momentum -
> and that Polaris is in the direction of north, and does not move from
> our viewpoint is a separate matter.
>
> Stars do, in fact, return on the basis of the interval of 23 hours, 56
> minutes, and 4 seconds, and that interval is uniform over the course
> of a year - no correction comparable to the Equation of Time applies
> to it.
>
> The Earth may not turn to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly, but it
> turns to face any given star on the Zodiac in 23 hours, 56 minutes,
> and 4 seconds exactly - less the .001 second I lopped off of the 4
> seconds, neglecting the very minor UT1-UT2 correction due to the
> winds, and so on and so forth.
>
> Thus, the axial rotation of the Earth, as compared against the stars,
> partakes of the same uniformity as the advancement in time of the
> indicators on a mechanical clock. This is a fact verified by
> observation, and this fact is all that Flamsteed is saying in what you
> quote.
>
> For you to say that Flamsteed _is_ saying something wrong there, and
> so badly wrong that it is a fault in us that we do not see it,
> appears, therefore, to indicate that you have read a different meaning
> to his words than the one we take.
>
> John Savard
To comprehend the new motion ,specifically the counter motion of
orbital orientation as it changes through an entire 360 degree
revolution over the course of an annual orbit,It is crucial to restore
the original Copernican insight which isolates orbital motion -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
No longer concerned with the stellar background,the slow and majestic
orbital change combined with the seperate axial rotation produce the
unequal noon cycles.As the EUMETSAT follows the orbital path of the
Earth,the effect shows up as the orbital shadow/solar radiation
boundary pivoting off the Equator -
To comprehend the new motion ,specifically the counter motion of
orbital orientation as it changes through an entire 360 degree
revolution over the course of an annual orbit,It is crucial to restore
the original Copernican insight which isolates orbital motion -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
No longer concerned with the stellar background,the slow and majestic
orbital change combined with the seperate axial rotation produce the
unequal noon cycles.As the EUMETSAT follows the orbital path of the
Earth,the effect shows up as the orbital shadow/solar radiation
boundary pivoting off the Equator -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2006/images/pr20060317b_b.jpg
Allied with the images of Uranus,it is now possible to replace the
pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt with the proper motion borrow
from orbital dynamics -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
Like so many times before,a restored insight or a new one like this
sinks into mediocrity,rather than taking the wider view and enjoying
what the new motion has to offer your empirical cult draws people
towards arguing over lost causes such as the late 17th century
astrological framework .The motion based on orbital orientation
change is there whether I propose it or not and even if there is a
little indignation that no merit system involved,it is only goes as
far as realising that there is no astronomical background to sit the
new insight into ,in short,I can live alone with the new insight.
You have to withdraw back to your kind and stick with your
magnification exercise and pretend this represents the entire spectrum
of the astronomical tradition.The inability to appreciate the wider
view of orbital dynamics is not a fault,it is just too limited
however the astrological framework into wqhich your kind sit the
Earth's motions (including variable axial tilt) is a different matter
entirely.It may happen that genuine people will eventually take the
wider view and become proper astronomers for the first time.
Again,I do not wish to see the new motion sink into the mediocrity of
people intent on their Ra/Dec zodiacal geometry,I can however explain
this to people who have,so far,little interest in astronomy and
especially in the climatology sector.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 08:19:51
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Your Ra/Dec system is a late 17th century observational
> convenience but Flamsteed took it too far by physically linking the
> Earth's axial rotation/orientation and subsequently orbital motion
> directly to zodiacal geometry -
>
> "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
> doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
> isochronical..." Flamsteed
>
> Looking at a statement like that from Flamsteed and knowing full well
> that you see nothing wrong with it
It certainly is true that there is no iron rod extending from Polaris,
and skewering the Earth. The only physical thing keeping the Earth's
axis in the same direction is the conservation of angular momentum -
and that Polaris is in the direction of north, and does not move from
our viewpoint is a separate matter.
Stars do, in fact, return on the basis of the interval of 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds, and that interval is uniform over the course
of a year - no correction comparable to the Equation of Time applies
to it.
The Earth may not turn to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly, but it
turns to face any given star on the Zodiac in 23 hours, 56 minutes,
and 4 seconds exactly - less the .001 second I lopped off of the 4
seconds, neglecting the very minor UT1-UT2 correction due to the
winds, and so on and so forth.
Thus, the axial rotation of the Earth, as compared against the stars,
partakes of the same uniformity as the advancement in time of the
indicators on a mechanical clock. This is a fact verified by
observation, and this fact is all that Flamsteed is saying in what you
quote.
For you to say that Flamsteed _is_ saying something wrong there, and
so badly wrong that it is a fault in us that we do not see it,
appears, therefore, to indicate that you have read a different meaning
to his words than the one we take.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:10:12
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 13, 4:06 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > There is no variation in axial tilt,just a lovely
> > slow planetary turning motion arising for orbital motion and I am
> > sorry you cannot gauge it.
>
> We *don't* disagree with that.
>
> Earth \ Sun<O>
> ... winter
>
> Sun<O> Earth \
> ... summer
>
> Earth tilted exactly the same way in winter and summer...
>
> but because of orbital motion, it's on the other side of the Sun.
>
> And so there is no real "turning motion" of the Earth, but it seems to
> turn from the viewpoint of the Sun - which is similar to our
> viewpoint, so much closer to the Sun, if we look at Uranus instead of
> Earth.
>
> John Savard
There most certainly is a genuine turning motion attached to orbital
dynamics,it gets rid of the need to explain hemispherical weather
patterns (Spring,Summer,Fall,Winter) using variable inclination to the
Sun
Using the new counter motion attached to orbital orientation
change ,it explains the global phenomena in the length of the natural
noon cycle without invoking the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt
and it supplies the reason for a daylight/darkness symmetry at the
Equator and variations in asymmetry further North and South,again
without invoking variable axial tilt.
The inability to seperate axial and orbital motion as distinct motions
with distinct orientations is the price you pay for adopting the Ra./
Dec system as a means to justify axial and orbital motion.
Your explanation is not parochial,it is hemispherical or one step
above a flat Earth doctrine.
Now,despite the fact the guys who responded to you believe that axial
tilt is a component in the Equation of Time,you can take it from me
that the longitudinal change in orbital orientation produces the real
effect of unequal natural noon cycles.This it a genuine discovery and
a huge one whether they know it or not or appreciate it or not insofar
as it directly links the Keplerian cycle with the human devised
creation of the 24 hour clock cycle.
I do not have to try anymore,if nobody appreciates the new motion as a
complimentary extension of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentric reasoning
then there is nothing I can do about it,it is there and can be easily
extracted from the convenient variations in axial and orbital geometry
of Uranus -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
Good luck to you and your magnification exercise.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:52:18
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <1189652804.207183.40030@o80g2000hse.google
> groups.com>, Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:06:44, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> posted:
>
> >We *don't* disagree with that.
> >
> >Earth \ Sun<O>
> >... winter
> >
> >Sun<O> Earth \
> >... summer
>
> That's rather parochial - the Australians would disagree.
That's true, but I had to oversimplify by omitting some details to
ensure it was very easy to understand.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:48:15
From: Dr J R Stockton
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
In sci.astro.amateur message <1189652804.207183.40030@o80g2000hse.google
groups.com >, Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:06:44, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
posted:
>We *don't* disagree with that.
>
>Earth \ Sun<O>
>... winter
>
>Sun<O> Earth \
>... summer
>
That's rather parochial - the Australians would disagree.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:12:23
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
In article <srWJGqJfls6GFwVb@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid >,
Dr J R Stockton <reply0737@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <1189652804.207183.40030@o80g2000hse.google
> groups.com>, Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:06:44, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> posted:
>
>>We *don't* disagree with that.
>>
>>Earth \ Sun<O> ... winter
>>
>>Sun<O> Earth \ ... summer
>
> That's rather parochial - the Australians would disagree.
Not if south is up in the figure.... and I don't think the Australians would
mind having south on top of the world. Always assuming that north is up
is another example of nothern chauvinism...... ;-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:06:44
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> There is no variation in axial tilt,just a lovely
> slow planetary turning motion arising for orbital motion and I am
> sorry you cannot gauge it.
We *don't* disagree with that.
Earth \ Sun<O >
... winter
Sun<O > Earth \
... summer
Earth tilted exactly the same way in winter and summer...
but because of orbital motion, it's on the other side of the Sun.
And so there is no real "turning motion" of the Earth, but it seems to
turn from the viewpoint of the Sun - which is similar to our
viewpoint, so much closer to the Sun, if we look at Uranus instead of
Earth.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 07:24:21
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 12, 2:11 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > As an analogy,skewer an apple through the center as though it
> > represented the Equator and point it at a bowl in the middle of a
> > table as though it were the central Sun.The 'sidereal time'
> > justification has the skewer pointing constantly at the Sun through a
> > full orbital cycle -
>
> No. We have the skewer pointing constantly to *Polaris* through a full
> orbital cycle, which it does.
>
Ah,you miss the information that the Uranus images are telling you
about the Earth,The rotation of the Earth obscures the change in
counter orbital orientation of the Earth however as the rotation of
Uranus is at almost 90 degrees to the orbital orientation it is almost
possible to isolate the change in orbital orientation -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
I am sorry that you cannot intepret what those images are telling you
and the analogy of the skewer through the apple is about as simple as
I can make it as it applies to the Earth.I hope at least a few people
see how planetary orbital orientation changes in spite of the fact
that people are taught that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours
keeping the same face to the Sun -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
You and your empiricist colleagues want to break your own rules of
observational evidence then good for you but then again,it remains to
be seen if people can act like astronomers for a change and accept
which the images are telling them.
> In the case of Uranus, the skewer would point towards one of the
> brighter stars in Ophiucius, if I understand the information at
>
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html
>
> correctly.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 06:52:50
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 12, 2:11 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Empiricistrs have a location facing noon every 24 hours exactly -
>
> If they did, they would be wrong. But, in reality, the "empiricists"
> are perfectly well aware of the Equation of Time. However, in a single
> day, the change in the correction from the Equation of Time is small.
>
I give this forum a first look at a counter motion against axial
rotation which explains why the noon cycles are unequal while
explaining to them how their magnification exercise is extremely
purposeful in promoting astronomy,its methods and its insights.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
The empiricists have no feeling for the great Copernican arguments
much less the modification based on applying observations of Uranus to
the Earth,their 'sidereal time' arguments even have the 24 hour noon
cycle as equal.They are so indoctrinated that even when presented with
their graphics they will argue to the contrary -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
I have watched the great Copernican insight wither under the
empiricist treatment even when time lapse footage showing the orbital
motion of the Earth overtaking the outer planets is now availible to
counter their doctrines -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
What more I can do ? ,the effort to get the change in orbital
orientation accepted would be a consequence of applying the Uranus
images to that of Earth and making the neccessary adjustments to the
principles such as the unequal length of the noon cycle and variations
in daylight/darkness either side of the Equator.That rotational
orientation of the Earth runs almost parallel with the orbital
orientation change and makes it difficult to see however it is
possible to isolate axial rotation and use time lapse footage to gauge
the orbital orientation change due to the way the Earth travels in its
orbit around the Sun.There is no variation in axial tilt,just a lovely
slow planetary turning motion arising for orbital motion and I am
sorry you cannot gauge it.
I do mind that there are no dignified people around to discuss the
matter and no educational structure to accept the explanation for the
unequal day lengths and more importantly,a modified explanation for
global climate and the seasons.There are only people like yourself who
is lost when confronted by actual images -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
> > The observations of Uranus show that a planet changes it orientation
> > through a full 360 degrees over an annual orbit and the Earth is no
> > exception.
>
> Yes, that is correct - if you mean that the *relation* of a planet's
> orientation to the Sun changes through a full 360 degrees over an
> annual orbit.
>
> > The counter motion to axial rotation, which shows up as a
> > longitudinal alteration in the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary
> > is responsible for the unequal length of the noon cycles.
>
> That (if you mean the change over the course of an annual orbit of the
> relationship between the direction of the axis and the direction of
> the line between the Sun and the planet) is responsible for part of
> the Equation of Time, and the other part is due to the orbit not being
> a perfect circle.
>
> > As an analogy,skewer an apple through the center as though it
> > represented the Equator and point it at a bowl in the middle of a
> > table as though it were the central Sun.The 'sidereal time'
> > justification has the skewer pointing constantly at the Sun through a
> > full orbital cycle -
>
> No. We have the skewer pointing constantly to *Polaris* through a full
> orbital cycle, which it does.
>
> In the case of Uranus, the skewer would point towards one of the
> brighter stars in Ophiucius, if I understand the information at
>
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html
>
> correctly.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 06:11:36
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Empiricistrs have a location facing noon every 24 hours exactly -
If they did, they would be wrong. But, in reality, the "empiricists"
are perfectly well aware of the Equation of Time. However, in a single
day, the change in the correction from the Equation of Time is small.
> The observations of Uranus show that a planet changes it orientation
> through a full 360 degrees over an annual orbit and the Earth is no
> exception.
Yes, that is correct - if you mean that the *relation* of a planet's
orientation to the Sun changes through a full 360 degrees over an
annual orbit.
> The counter motion to axial rotation, which shows up as a
> longitudinal alteration in the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary
> is responsible for the unequal length of the noon cycles.
That (if you mean the change over the course of an annual orbit of the
relationship between the direction of the axis and the direction of
the line between the Sun and the planet) is responsible for part of
the Equation of Time, and the other part is due to the orbit not being
a perfect circle.
> As an analogy,skewer an apple through the center as though it
> represented the Equator and point it at a bowl in the middle of a
> table as though it were the central Sun.The 'sidereal time'
> justification has the skewer pointing constantly at the Sun through a
> full orbital cycle -
No. We have the skewer pointing constantly to *Polaris* through a full
orbital cycle, which it does.
In the case of Uranus, the skewer would point towards one of the
brighter stars in Ophiucius, if I understand the information at
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html
correctly.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 03:10:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 12, 5:59 am, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
> > Again,it is not often that astronomers get to work with a new motion
> > and the counter motion supplied by the Earth's orbital motion and
> > observed by the latitudinal and longitudinal motion of the solar
> > radiation/orbital shadow boundary should be a cause for
> > celebration.The axial rotational orientation of the Earth obscures
> > the orbital change in orientation however it is fairly easy to see
> > once you extract axial rotation or seperate it from orbital motion.As
> > the axial rotational orientation of Uranus is almost at 90 degrees to
> > the change in orbital orientation of the planet,it should be fairly
> > easy for astronomers to apply the same principle to the Earth -
>
> >http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5ye...
>
> this is delusional nonsense.
>
Empiricistrs have a location facing noon every 24 hours exactly -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.3116
The observations of Uranus show that a planet changes it orientation
through a full 360 degrees over an annual orbit and the Earth is no
exception.The counter motion to axial rotation, which shows up as a
longitudinal alteration in the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary
is responsible for the unequal length of the noon cycles.
As an analogy,skewer an apple through the center as though it
represented the Equator and point it at a bowl in the middle of a
table as though it were the central Sun.The 'sidereal time'
justification has the skewer pointing constantly at the Sun through a
full orbital cycle -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
What actually occurs is that the skewer would actually depart from
facing the Sun and turn through a full 360 degrees,As the axial
orientation of Uranus almost negates axial rotation from the
picture,it is easy to see the orbital orientation change as an
isolated motion -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
You call me delusional for calling attention to an actual unnoticed
planetary motion,one that is actually observed , but I will only
remind people that axial rotation makes it difficult to discern the
counter motion arising for the Earth's orbital motion.
> > The educational structure at the time of Copernicus was good enough to
> > weigh up the physical considerations based on giving the Earth and
> > axial and orbital motion in explaining physical phenomena ,this chance
> > has come around again insofar as the need to modify the reason for the
> > seasons using the axial/orbital motions and orientations of the Earth
> > requires recognition that a location does not face noon every 24 hours
> > as 'celestial mechanics' has it * .
>
> most of this has nothing to do with EARTH ASTRONOMY and nothing to do
> with history.
>
> more word salsd.
>
> > There are enough intelligent people around,whether they consider
> > themselves amateur/professional or novice/expert, to see that the
> > extreme axial rotational orientation of Uranus allows a view of the
> > orbital orientation change and this occurs for the Earth
> > also,latitudinally causing hemispherical weather patterns and daylight/
> > darkness asymmetry but longitudinally explaining why the noon cycles
> > are unequal in length globally.
>
> > As there are productive working principles
> > (astronomy,climatology,geology ect) involved in identifying the
> > orbital component it is not really a conclusion but it is a resting
> > point for me,these things involve an effort that takes its toll as
> > anyone who has spent some time with the material will
> > testify,notwithstanding the hostiility or the silence .
>
> just because it is true-- it still is nonsense.
>
>
You are better off back with your kind in talk.origins.Your empirical
concepts,based on an astrological framework,have you running like
squirrels round a celestial sphere cage and you seem quite content
with your situation.
>
> > * '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. "
> > Marshall Space Flight Center.
>
> >http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
>
> you are concerned about a non problem.
The problem is that you are indoctrinated into a cult which is
conditioned to ignore actual observations.It has been known since
remore antiquity that the noon cycles are unequal hence the Equation
of Time correction which creates the equable 24 hour day and keeps
these cycles in sync with the noon cycle.You actually can't see a
problem with the explanation from Nasa nor the fact that the fictional
difference between the solar/sidereal day is expressed in orbital
terms.
I have an equatorial
> Telescope and I have a motor drive. the problem is just not that
> serious. I can take long term photographs and my polar alignment has
> more effect.
>
It is not often that astronomers get to work with a new motion for the
purpose of explaining the seasons and why the total length of the noon
cycles are unequal and how this links in with the Equation of
Time .Your Ra/Dec system is a late 17th century observational
convenience but Flamsteed took it too far by physically linking the
Earth's axial rotation/orientation and subsequently orbital motion
directly to zodiacal geometry -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed
Looking at a statement like that from Flamsteed and knowing full well
that you see nothing wrong with it hardly compensates for the exciting
possibilities which arise from showing how the counter orbital
orientation motion along with the axial rotational cycle combine to
generate the unequal length of the noon cycle.The difference is that I
can point directly to that change in orbital orientation and how it
explains why at the Equator the apparent arc motion of the Sun remains
steady while the arc change at the poles is extreme.I assure you it is
due to the orbital orientation change and not variable axial tilt.
> josephus
> --
> I go sailing in the Summer and
> look at STARS in the Winter.
> "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
> Will Rogers Jr.
> "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
> it is what you know that aint so"
> Josh Billings.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 03:27:59
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 11, 7:10 am, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>>>>You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>
> >>>>>"Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
> >>>>>and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
> >>>>>minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
> >>>>>days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
> >>>>>those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>
> >>>>>The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
> >>>>>axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means th=
at
> >>>>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
> >>>>>certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> >>>>>Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
> >>>>>Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
> >>>>>'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
> >>>>>something is badly wrong -
>
> >>>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9r=
e=2E..
>
> >>>>>Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
> >>>>>rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,=
it
> >>>>>has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
> >>>>>numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
> >>>>>important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
> >>>>>relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
> >>>>>generate the seasons.
>
> >>>>>You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then tu=
rn
> >>>>>around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute =
56
> >>>>>second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>
> >>>>>http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.J=
PG
>
> >>>>>The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal f=
or
> >>>>>climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
> >>>>>boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
> >>>>>orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
> >>>>>responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>
> >>>>>Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
> >>>>>day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
> >>>>>human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
> >>>>>which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
> >>>>>orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
> >>>>>they too make the same error over and over again -
>
> >>>>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> >>>>>So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
> >>>>>rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pron=
to
> >>>>>given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
> >>>>>responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
> >>>>>motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
> >>>>>anybody come close.
>
> >>>>>You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
> >>>>>there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>
> >>>>>Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
> >>>>>learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
> >>>>>your concepts going.
>
> >>>>orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weat=
her
> >>>>can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and=
UT
> >>>>is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
> >>>>Journal.
>
> >>>> josephus
>
> >>>Nobody has ever determined the value for axial rotation as an isolated
> >>>motion and it is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
> >>>fractions thereof whichg contemporaries believe.
>
> >>>I concede that the means by which the equable 24 hour day was
> >>>transfered to the axial cycle as 'constant' in principle (thereby
> >>>allowing terrestrial longitudes and clock time to mesh at 24 hours/360
> >>>degrees) is a delicate principle and civil and military authorities
> >>>may not be aware of it but the system inherited from F;lamsteed's
> >>>false proof for constant axial rotation via zodiacal geometry is
> >>>shocking from every type of angle.
>
> >>>So, we are a technologically advanced society who have yet to isolate
> >>>axial rotation because it interferes with late 17th century agendas by
> >>>Flamsteed/Newton and adopt ideas for the Earth's axial and orbital
> >>>motions that exist only in the imagination.Anybody who wonders what
> >>>happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
> >>>23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
> >>>is badly wrong.
>
> >>>I look at what the website from the navy had to say -
>
> >>>"Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the
> >>>Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. "
>
> >>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> >>>The second was never defined in terms of axial rotation,nor the
> >>>hour ,not even the parent 24 hour cycle from which equable
> >>>hours,minutes and seconds are derived,again,the timekeeping
> >>>astronomers exploited the means by which one 24 hour cycle elapses
> >>>into the next 24 hour cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as
> >>>though it were 'constant',it still remains that way.The extraction of
> >>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been accomplished but
> >>>it sure needs to be.
>
> >>I actually read and post in several ng. I have of course been in
> >>talk.origins, sci.skeptic, sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur and others.
>
> >>>You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a quasi-
> >>>commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
> >>>some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature .Like
> >>>it or not,Western civilisation ,imperfect though it may be,is built on
> >>>a Christian foundation and although its merit system and civil/
> >>>military authority may be Roman for the most part,it allowed for
> >>>some of the greatest human individual achievements and was always
> >>>rightly defended.Looking at the navy promote an empirical ideology
> >>>like the 'leap second' correction as applied to axial rotation it is
> >>>hard to imagine that they are defending a concept which has rotted
> >>>Western astronomy from within and destroyed the merit system to boot
> >>>and all because a man (Flamsteed) made a simple mistake.
>
> >> historically I could agree, but MODERN ASTROMETRY does not use the
> >>second the way you assert. there are SEVERAL kinds of seconds. and it
> >>depends on what kind of calculation, you are making.
>
> > You are a quasi-commie empiricist with an unhealthy view of almost
> > everything.If you can invent SEVERAL types of seconds then good for
> > you,I am sure the creationists will be delighted to hear it but at
> > least those in s.a.a. have not descended to that dismal intellectual
> > level so far.
>
> I did not invent these different time schemes. I study them and try to
> understand them so I can study CELESTIAL MECHANICS.
>
>
>
> > I have always told these guys that magnification/optics is a facet of
> > astronomy but too limiting to call itself astronomy ,their ties do not
> > belong to the empirical agenda which has destroyed heliocentric
> > reasoning but to the noble discipline of structural and timekeeping
> > astronomy and ther tradition of Copernicus,Kepler and Huygens.The
> > dynamicists would belong as an important facet but they subscribe to
> > an astrological framework and framehopping within it.
>
> I am sorry you are a kook. but nobody cares but you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > the astronomical
>
> >>day is the standard of time unit. Most of the formulas I use are
> >>expressed in day and Julian centuries. Laboratories care about seconds.
> >>the astronomical records are usually in barycenter time. but that is not
> >>equal to UT or wall clock time.
>
> >>sidereal time for EARTH is 365.256363 this particular constant in this
> >>formula
> >> K^2/(r*PI) * (365.256363)^2 * (1+1/328900.55) =3D=3D
> >>(1.0000000109)^(1/3) =3D 1.00000036397 AU
>
> >>observe that Time is in days and distance is in Astronomical Unities (=
AU)
>
> >>>In all respect I do not care for the politics,the technical details
> >>>explicitly determine that axial rotation has never been isolated and
> >>>determined whether the motion is constant or not.I can also definitely
> >>>state that it is Not,I repeat, not anywhere close to 23 hours 56
> >>>minutes 04 seconds or parts thereof -
>
> >> that is just not true. Mean time is , but UT is not.
> >>and there are tables to calculate nutation. the wobble due to Lunar and
> >>other influences. I really dont understand how we could calculate
> >>nutation and not know the earth rotation is not constant.
> >> the period of the MOON is 27.6221 days and it oscillates due to
> >>solar influence. the moon was used to establish time. this is why
> >>Atomic Time is the new standard. the only people who really care are
> >>astronomers. nobody else needs to know about BARYCENTER TIME, EPHEMERIS
> >>TIME, or any variety than WALL CLOCK TIME or UT.
>
> >>>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
> >>>>>On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Brian Tung wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gent=
le
> >>>>>>>request.
>
> >>>>>>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
> >>>>>>prompts them.
>
> >>>>>>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
> >>>>>>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
> >>>>>>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christ=
ian
> >>>>>>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encourag=
ing
> >>>>>>someone whose posts are viewed as
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again,it is not often that astronomers get to work with a new motion
and the counter motion supplied by the Earth's orbital motion and
observed by the latitudinal and longitudinal motion of the solar
radiation/orbital shadow boundary should be a cause for
celebration.The axial rotational orientation of the Earth obscures
the orbital change in orientation however it is fairly easy to see
once you extract axial rotation or seperate it from orbital motion.As
the axial rotational orientation of Uranus is almost at 90 degrees to
the change in orbital orientation of the planet,it should be fairly
easy for astronomers to apply the same principle to the Earth -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
The educational structure at the time of Copernicus was good enough to
weigh up the physical considerations based on giving the Earth and
axial and orbital motion in explaining physical phenomena ,this chance
has come around again insofar as the need to modify the reason for the
seasons using the axial/orbital motions and orientations of the Earth
requires recognition that a location does not face noon every 24 hours
as 'celestial mechanics' has it * .
There are enough intelligent people around,whether they consider
themselves amateur/professional or novice/expert, to see that the
extreme axial rotational orientation of Uranus allows a view of the
orbital orientation change and this occurs for the Earth
also,latitudinally causing hemispherical weather patterns and daylight/
darkness asymmetry but longitudinally explaining why the noon cycles
are unequal in length globally.
As there are productive working principles
(astronomy,climatology,geology ect) involved in identifying the
orbital component it is not really a conclusion but it is a resting
point for me,these things involve an effort that takes its toll as
anyone who has spent some time with the material will
testify,notwithstanding the hostiility or the silence .
* '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. "
Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 23:59:33
From: josephus
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 11, 7:10 am, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>>
>>>>>>>"Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
>>>>>>>and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
>>>>>>>minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
>>>>>>>days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
>>>>>>>those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>>
>>>>>>>The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
>>>>>>>axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
>>>>>>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
>>>>>>>certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>>
>>>>>>>Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
>>>>>>>Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
>>>>>>>'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
>>>>>>>something is badly wrong -
>>
>>>>>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...
>>
>>>>>>>Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
>>>>>>>rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
>>>>>>>has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
>>>>>>>numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
>>>>>>>important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
>>>>>>>relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
>>>>>>>generate the seasons.
>>
>>>>>>>You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
>>>>>>>around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
>>>>>>>second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>>
>>>>>>>http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>>
>>>>>>>The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
>>>>>>>climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
>>>>>>>boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
>>>>>>>orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
>>>>>>>responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>>
>>>>>>>Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
>>>>>>>day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
>>>>>>>human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
>>>>>>>which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
>>>>>>>orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
>>>>>>>they too make the same error over and over again -
>>
>>>>>>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>>
>>>>>>>So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
>>>>>>>rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
>>>>>>>given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
>>>>>>>responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
>>>>>>>motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
>>>>>>>anybody come close.
>>
>>>>>>>You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
>>>>>>>there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>>
>>>>>>>Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
>>>>>>>learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
>>>>>>>your concepts going.
>>
>>>>>>orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
>>>>>>can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
>>>>>>is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
>>>>>>Journal.
>>
>>>>>>josephus
>>
>>>>>Nobody has ever determined the value for axial rotation as an isolated
>>>>>motion and it is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
>>>>>fractions thereof whichg contemporaries believe.
>>
>>>>>I concede that the means by which the equable 24 hour day was
>>>>>transfered to the axial cycle as 'constant' in principle (thereby
>>>>>allowing terrestrial longitudes and clock time to mesh at 24 hours/360
>>>>>degrees) is a delicate principle and civil and military authorities
>>>>>may not be aware of it but the system inherited from F;lamsteed's
>>>>>false proof for constant axial rotation via zodiacal geometry is
>>>>>shocking from every type of angle.
>>
>>>>>So, we are a technologically advanced society who have yet to isolate
>>>>>axial rotation because it interferes with late 17th century agendas by
>>>>>Flamsteed/Newton and adopt ideas for the Earth's axial and orbital
>>>>>motions that exist only in the imagination.Anybody who wonders what
>>>>>happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
>>>>>23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
>>>>>is badly wrong.
>>
>>>>>I look at what the website from the navy had to say -
>>
>>>>>"Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the
>>>>>Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. "
>>
>>>>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>>
>>>>>The second was never defined in terms of axial rotation,nor the
>>>>>hour ,not even the parent 24 hour cycle from which equable
>>>>>hours,minutes and seconds are derived,again,the timekeeping
>>>>>astronomers exploited the means by which one 24 hour cycle elapses
>>>>>into the next 24 hour cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as
>>>>>though it were 'constant',it still remains that way.The extraction of
>>>>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been accomplished but
>>>>>it sure needs to be.
>>
>>>>I actually read and post in several ng. I have of course been in
>>>>talk.origins, sci.skeptic, sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur and others.
>>
>>>>>You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a quasi-
>>>>>commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
>>>>>some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature .Like
>>>>>it or not,Western civilisation ,imperfect though it may be,is built on
>>>>>a Christian foundation and although its merit system and civil/
>>>>>military authority may be Roman for the most part,it allowed for
>>>>>some of the greatest human individual achievements and was always
>>>>>rightly defended.Looking at the navy promote an empirical ideology
>>>>>like the 'leap second' correction as applied to axial rotation it is
>>>>>hard to imagine that they are defending a concept which has rotted
>>>>>Western astronomy from within and destroyed the merit system to boot
>>>>>and all because a man (Flamsteed) made a simple mistake.
>>
>>>> historically I could agree, but MODERN ASTROMETRY does not use the
>>>>second the way you assert. there are SEVERAL kinds of seconds. and it
>>>>depends on what kind of calculation, you are making.
>>
>>>You are a quasi-commie empiricist with an unhealthy view of almost
>>>everything.If you can invent SEVERAL types of seconds then good for
>>>you,I am sure the creationists will be delighted to hear it but at
>>>least those in s.a.a. have not descended to that dismal intellectual
>>>level so far.
>>
>>I did not invent these different time schemes. I study them and try to
>>understand them so I can study CELESTIAL MECHANICS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have always told these guys that magnification/optics is a facet of
>>>astronomy but too limiting to call itself astronomy ,their ties do not
>>>belong to the empirical agenda which has destroyed heliocentric
>>>reasoning but to the noble discipline of structural and timekeeping
>>>astronomy and ther tradition of Copernicus,Kepler and Huygens.The
>>>dynamicists would belong as an important facet but they subscribe to
>>>an astrological framework and framehopping within it.
>>
>> I am sorry you are a kook. but nobody cares but you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> the astronomical
>>
>>>>day is the standard of time unit. Most of the formulas I use are
>>>>expressed in day and Julian centuries. Laboratories care about seconds.
>>>>the astronomical records are usually in barycenter time. but that is not
>>>>equal to UT or wall clock time.
>>
>>>>sidereal time for EARTH is 365.256363 this particular constant in this
>>>>formula
>>>> K^2/(r*PI) * (365.256363)^2 * (1+1/328900.55) ==
>>>>(1.0000000109)^(1/3) = 1.00000036397 AU
>>
>>>>observe that Time is in days and distance is in Astronomical Unities (AU)
>>
>>>>>In all respect I do not care for the politics,the technical details
>>>>>explicitly determine that axial rotation has never been isolated and
>>>>>determined whether the motion is constant or not.I can also definitely
>>>>>state that it is Not,I repeat, not anywhere close to 23 hours 56
>>>>>minutes 04 seconds or parts thereof -
>>
>>>> that is just not true. Mean time is , but UT is not.
>>>>and there are tables to calculate nutation. the wobble due to Lunar and
>>>>other influences. I really dont understand how we could calculate
>>>>nutation and not know the earth rotation is not constant.
>>>> the period of the MOON is 27.6221 days and it oscillates due to
>>>>solar influence. the moon was used to establish time. this is why
>>>>Atomic Time is the new standard. the only people who really care are
>>>>astronomers. nobody else needs to know about BARYCENTER TIME, EPHEMERIS
>>>>TIME, or any variety than WALL CLOCK TIME or UT.
>>
>>>>>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>Brian Tung wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
>>>>>>>>>request.
>>
>>>>>>>>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
>>>>>>>>prompts them.
>>
>>>>>>>>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
>>>>>>>>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
>>>>>>>>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
>>>>>>>>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
>>>>>>>>someone whose posts are viewed as
>>
>>...
>>
>>read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
this is word salad.
> Again,it is not often that astronomers get to work with a new motion
> and the counter motion supplied by the Earth's orbital motion and
> observed by the latitudinal and longitudinal motion of the solar
> radiation/orbital shadow boundary should be a cause for
> celebration.The axial rotational orientation of the Earth obscures
> the orbital change in orientation however it is fairly easy to see
> once you extract axial rotation or seperate it from orbital motion.As
> the axial rotational orientation of Uranus is almost at 90 degrees to
> the change in orbital orientation of the planet,it should be fairly
> easy for astronomers to apply the same principle to the Earth -
>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
>
this is delusional nonsense.
> The educational structure at the time of Copernicus was good enough to
> weigh up the physical considerations based on giving the Earth and
> axial and orbital motion in explaining physical phenomena ,this chance
> has come around again insofar as the need to modify the reason for the
> seasons using the axial/orbital motions and orientations of the Earth
> requires recognition that a location does not face noon every 24 hours
> as 'celestial mechanics' has it * .
>
most of this has nothing to do with EARTH ASTRONOMY and nothing to do
with history.
more word salsd.
> There are enough intelligent people around,whether they consider
> themselves amateur/professional or novice/expert, to see that the
> extreme axial rotational orientation of Uranus allows a view of the
> orbital orientation change and this occurs for the Earth
> also,latitudinally causing hemispherical weather patterns and daylight/
> darkness asymmetry but longitudinally explaining why the noon cycles
> are unequal in length globally.
>
> As there are productive working principles
> (astronomy,climatology,geology ect) involved in identifying the
> orbital component it is not really a conclusion but it is a resting
> point for me,these things involve an effort that takes its toll as
> anyone who has spent some time with the material will
> testify,notwithstanding the hostiility or the silence .
>
>
just because it is true-- it still is nonsense.
>
> * '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. "
> Marshall Space Flight Center.
>
> http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
>
>
you are concerned about a non problem. I have an equatorial
Telescope and I have a motor drive. the problem is just not that
serious. I can take long term photographs and my polar alignment has
more effect.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 09:00:07
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>>You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>
> >>>"Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
> >>>and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
> >>>minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
> >>>days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
> >>>those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>
> >>>The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
> >>>axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
> >>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
> >>>certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> >>>Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
> >>>Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
> >>>'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
> >>>something is badly wrong -
>
> >>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re.=
.=2E
>
> >>>Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
> >>>rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
> >>>has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
> >>>numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
> >>>important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
> >>>relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
> >>>generate the seasons.
>
> >>>You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
> >>>around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
> >>>second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>
> >>>http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>
> >>>The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
> >>>climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
> >>>boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
> >>>orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
> >>>responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>
> >>>Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
> >>>day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
> >>>human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
> >>>which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
> >>>orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
> >>>they too make the same error over and over again -
>
> >>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> >>>So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
> >>>rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
> >>>given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
> >>>responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
> >>>motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
> >>>anybody come close.
>
> >>>You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
> >>>there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>
> >>>Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
> >>>learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
> >>>your concepts going.
>
> >>orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
> >>can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
> >>is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
> >>Journal.
>
> >> josephus
>
> > Nobody has ever determined the value for axial rotation as an isolated
> > motion and it is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
> > fractions thereof whichg contemporaries believe.
>
> > I concede that the means by which the equable 24 hour day was
> > transfered to the axial cycle as 'constant' in principle (thereby
> > allowing terrestrial longitudes and clock time to mesh at 24 hours/360
> > degrees) is a delicate principle and civil and military authorities
> > may not be aware of it but the system inherited from F;lamsteed's
> > false proof for constant axial rotation via zodiacal geometry is
> > shocking from every type of angle.
>
> > So, we are a technologically advanced society who have yet to isolate
> > axial rotation because it interferes with late 17th century agendas by
> > Flamsteed/Newton and adopt ideas for the Earth's axial and orbital
> > motions that exist only in the imagination.Anybody who wonders what
> > happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
> > 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
> > is badly wrong.
>
> > I look at what the website from the navy had to say -
>
> > "Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the
> > Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. "
>
> >http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> > The second was never defined in terms of axial rotation,nor the
> > hour ,not even the parent 24 hour cycle from which equable
> > hours,minutes and seconds are derived,again,the timekeeping
> > astronomers exploited the means by which one 24 hour cycle elapses
> > into the next 24 hour cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as
> > though it were 'constant',it still remains that way.The extraction of
> > axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been accomplished but
> > it sure needs to be.
>
> I actually read and post in several ng. I have of course been in
> talk.origins, sci.skeptic, sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur and others.
>
> > You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a quasi-
> > commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
> > some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature .Like
> > it or not,Western civilisation ,imperfect though it may be,is built on
> > a Christian foundation and although its merit system and civil/
> > military authority may be Roman for the most part,it allowed for
> > some of the greatest human individual achievements and was always
> > rightly defended.Looking at the navy promote an empirical ideology
> > like the 'leap second' correction as applied to axial rotation it is
> > hard to imagine that they are defending a concept which has rotted
> > Western astronomy from within and destroyed the merit system to boot
> > and all because a man (Flamsteed) made a simple mistake.
>
> historically I could agree, but MODERN ASTROMETRY does not use the
> second the way you assert. there are SEVERAL kinds of seconds. and it
> depends on what kind of calculation, you are making.
You are a quasi-commie empiricist with an unhealthy view of almost
everything.If you can invent SEVERAL types of seconds then good for
you,I am sure the creationists will be delighted to hear it but at
least those in s.a.a. have not descended to that dismal intellectual
level so far.
I have always told these guys that magnification/optics is a facet of
astronomy but too limiting to call itself astronomy ,their ties do not
belong to the empirical agenda which has destroyed heliocentric
reasoning but to the noble discipline of structural and timekeeping
astronomy and ther tradition of Copernicus,Kepler and Huygens.The
dynamicists would belong as an important facet but they subscribe to
an astrological framework and framehopping within it.
the astronomical
> day is the standard of time unit. Most of the formulas I use are
> expressed in day and Julian centuries. Laboratories care about seconds.
> the astronomical records are usually in barycenter time. but that is not
> equal to UT or wall clock time.
>
> sidereal time for EARTH is 365.256363 this particular constant in this
> formula
> K^2/(r*PI) * (365.256363)^2 * (1+1/328900.55) =3D=3D
> (1.0000000109)^(1/3) =3D 1.00000036397 AU
>
> observe that Time is in days and distance is in Astronomical Unities (AU)
>
> > In all respect I do not care for the politics,the technical details
> > explicitly determine that axial rotation has never been isolated and
> > determined whether the motion is constant or not.I can also definitely
> > state that it is Not,I repeat, not anywhere close to 23 hours 56
> > minutes 04 seconds or parts thereof -
>
> that is just not true. Mean time is , but UT is not.
> and there are tables to calculate nutation. the wobble due to Lunar and
> other influences. I really dont understand how we could calculate
> nutation and not know the earth rotation is not constant.
> the period of the MOON is 27.6221 days and it oscillates due to
> solar influence. the moon was used to establish time. this is why
> Atomic Time is the new standard. the only people who really care are
> astronomers. nobody else needs to know about BARYCENTER TIME, EPHEMERIS
> TIME, or any variety than WALL CLOCK TIME or UT.
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
> >>>On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>>Brian Tung wrote:
>
> >>>>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
> >>>>>request.
>
> >>>>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
> >>>>prompts them.
>
> >>>>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
> >>>>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
> >>>>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
> >>>>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
> >>>>someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
>
> >>>>It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
> >>>>certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
> >>>>universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
> >>>>of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
> >>>>seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
> >>>>Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
> >>>>Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
> >>>>was a conflict between them.
>
> >>>>It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
> >>>>motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
> >>>>heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
> >>>>centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
> >>>>understanding straightforwards.
>
> >>>>Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
> >>>>highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
> >>>>*really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
> >>>>- and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
> >>>>passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
> >>>>sidewalk! Again, it's
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 01:10:29
From: josephus
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>>>You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>>
>>>>>"Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
>>>>>and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
>>>>>minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
>>>>>days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
>>>>>those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>>
>>>>>The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
>>>>>axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
>>>>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
>>>>>certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>>
>>>>>Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
>>>>>Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
>>>>>'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
>>>>>something is badly wrong -
>>
>>>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...
>>
>>>>>Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
>>>>>rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
>>>>>has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
>>>>>numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
>>>>>important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
>>>>>relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
>>>>>generate the seasons.
>>
>>>>>You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
>>>>>around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
>>>>>second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>>
>>>>>http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>>
>>>>>The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
>>>>>climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
>>>>>boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
>>>>>orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
>>>>>responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>>
>>>>>Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
>>>>>day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
>>>>>human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
>>>>>which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
>>>>>orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
>>>>>they too make the same error over and over again -
>>
>>>>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>>
>>>>>So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
>>>>>rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
>>>>>given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
>>>>>responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
>>>>>motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
>>>>>anybody come close.
>>
>>>>>You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
>>>>>there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>>
>>>>>Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
>>>>>learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
>>>>>your concepts going.
>>
>>>>orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
>>>>can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
>>>>is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
>>>>Journal.
>>
>>>> josephus
>>
>>>Nobody has ever determined the value for axial rotation as an isolated
>>>motion and it is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
>>>fractions thereof whichg contemporaries believe.
>>
>>>I concede that the means by which the equable 24 hour day was
>>>transfered to the axial cycle as 'constant' in principle (thereby
>>>allowing terrestrial longitudes and clock time to mesh at 24 hours/360
>>>degrees) is a delicate principle and civil and military authorities
>>>may not be aware of it but the system inherited from F;lamsteed's
>>>false proof for constant axial rotation via zodiacal geometry is
>>>shocking from every type of angle.
>>
>>>So, we are a technologically advanced society who have yet to isolate
>>>axial rotation because it interferes with late 17th century agendas by
>>>Flamsteed/Newton and adopt ideas for the Earth's axial and orbital
>>>motions that exist only in the imagination.Anybody who wonders what
>>>happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
>>>23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
>>>is badly wrong.
>>
>>>I look at what the website from the navy had to say -
>>
>>>"Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the
>>>Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. "
>>
>>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>>
>>>The second was never defined in terms of axial rotation,nor the
>>>hour ,not even the parent 24 hour cycle from which equable
>>>hours,minutes and seconds are derived,again,the timekeeping
>>>astronomers exploited the means by which one 24 hour cycle elapses
>>>into the next 24 hour cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as
>>>though it were 'constant',it still remains that way.The extraction of
>>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been accomplished but
>>>it sure needs to be.
>>
>>I actually read and post in several ng. I have of course been in
>>talk.origins, sci.skeptic, sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur and others.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a quasi-
>>>commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
>>>some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature .Like
>>>it or not,Western civilisation ,imperfect though it may be,is built on
>>>a Christian foundation and although its merit system and civil/
>>>military authority may be Roman for the most part,it allowed for
>>>some of the greatest human individual achievements and was always
>>>rightly defended.Looking at the navy promote an empirical ideology
>>>like the 'leap second' correction as applied to axial rotation it is
>>>hard to imagine that they are defending a concept which has rotted
>>>Western astronomy from within and destroyed the merit system to boot
>>>and all because a man (Flamsteed) made a simple mistake.
>>
>> historically I could agree, but MODERN ASTROMETRY does not use the
>>second the way you assert. there are SEVERAL kinds of seconds. and it
>>depends on what kind of calculation, you are making.
>
>
>
> You are a quasi-commie empiricist with an unhealthy view of almost
> everything.If you can invent SEVERAL types of seconds then good for
> you,I am sure the creationists will be delighted to hear it but at
> least those in s.a.a. have not descended to that dismal intellectual
> level so far.
I did not invent these different time schemes. I study them and try to
understand them so I can study CELESTIAL MECHANICS.
>
> I have always told these guys that magnification/optics is a facet of
> astronomy but too limiting to call itself astronomy ,their ties do not
> belong to the empirical agenda which has destroyed heliocentric
> reasoning but to the noble discipline of structural and timekeeping
> astronomy and ther tradition of Copernicus,Kepler and Huygens.The
> dynamicists would belong as an important facet but they subscribe to
> an astrological framework and framehopping within it.
>
I am sorry you are a kook. but nobody cares but you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the astronomical
>
>>day is the standard of time unit. Most of the formulas I use are
>>expressed in day and Julian centuries. Laboratories care about seconds.
>>the astronomical records are usually in barycenter time. but that is not
>>equal to UT or wall clock time.
>>
>>sidereal time for EARTH is 365.256363 this particular constant in this
>>formula
>> K^2/(r*PI) * (365.256363)^2 * (1+1/328900.55) ==
>>(1.0000000109)^(1/3) = 1.00000036397 AU
>>
>>observe that Time is in days and distance is in Astronomical Unities (AU)
>>
>>
>>>In all respect I do not care for the politics,the technical details
>>>explicitly determine that axial rotation has never been isolated and
>>>determined whether the motion is constant or not.I can also definitely
>>>state that it is Not,I repeat, not anywhere close to 23 hours 56
>>>minutes 04 seconds or parts thereof -
>>
>> that is just not true. Mean time is , but UT is not.
>>and there are tables to calculate nutation. the wobble due to Lunar and
>>other influences. I really dont understand how we could calculate
>>nutation and not know the earth rotation is not constant.
>> the period of the MOON is 27.6221 days and it oscillates due to
>>solar influence. the moon was used to establish time. this is why
>>Atomic Time is the new standard. the only people who really care are
>>astronomers. nobody else needs to know about BARYCENTER TIME, EPHEMERIS
>>TIME, or any variety than WALL CLOCK TIME or UT.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>>
>>>>>On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Brian Tung wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
>>>>>>>request.
>>
>>>>>>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
>>>>>>prompts them.
>>
>>>>>>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
>>>>>>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
>>>>>>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
>>>>>>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
>>>>>>someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
>>
>>>>>>It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
>>>>>>certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
>>>>>>universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
>>>>>>of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
>>>>>>seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
>>>>>>Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
>>>>>>Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
>>>>>>was a conflict between them.
>>
>>>>>>It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
>>>>>>motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
>>>>>>heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
>>>>>>centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
>>>>>>understanding straightforwards.
>>
>>>>>>Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
>>>>>>highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
>>>>>>*really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
>>>>>>- and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
>>>>>>passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
>>>>>>sidewalk! Again, it's
>>
>>...
>>
>>read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 08:50:32
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 10, 1:17 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Anybody who wonders what
> > happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
> > 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
> > is badly wrong.
>
> That would only be true if the Earth turned to face the Sun in 24
> hours exactly. Then, variable orbital speed and the constant cycle of
> 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds would indeed be in contradiction.
>
> But the Earth doesn't turn to face the Sun in exactly 24 hours, just
> as you've been telling us over and over. *That's* the thing that
> "something happens to", and that something is called the Equation of
> Time.
>
> John Savard
It has been an absolute disgrace that I have to struggle with
numbskulls like yourself to point out that the Earth's orbital
orientation goes through a full 360 degrees change over the course of
an annual orbital cycle,the longitudinal change in the solar radiation/
orbital shadow boundary being the observable consequence of that
motion.From there it is into climatology and the actual reason for
the seasons.
You mathematical numbskulls have been living off the idea that the
noon cycle is 24 hours exactly is order to create a fictional
difference to the 'sidereal day ' -
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. "
Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
The original Copernican explanation for the seasons based on variable
inclination can be modified to take into account the new motion that
has gone on unnoticed namely the slow orbital turn of the Earth which
causes the unequal noon cycles and observed via the longitudinal
change in solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary in accordance with
Keplerian orbital geometry and speed.
You lot cut your own throats by making the noon cycles 24 hours
exactly and imposing a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt into the
Equation of Time correction in order to justify your idiosyncratic
version of the Earth's axial and orbital motion -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
Like it or not,astronomers have a new motion to work with and a new
explanation for the seasons using a truly global view.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 05:17:01
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Anybody who wonders what
> happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
> 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
> is badly wrong.
That would only be true if the Earth turned to face the Sun in 24
hours exactly. Then, variable orbital speed and the constant cycle of
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds would indeed be in contradiction.
But the Earth doesn't turn to face the Sun in exactly 24 hours, just
as you've been telling us over and over. *That's* the thing that
"something happens to", and that something is called the Equation of
Time.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 03:10:06
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>
> > "Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
> > and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
> > minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
> > days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
> > those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>
> > The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
> > axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
> > axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
> > certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> > Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
> > Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
> > 'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
> > something is badly wrong -
>
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...
>
> > Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
> > rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
> > has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
> > numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
> > important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
> > relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
> > generate the seasons.
>
> > You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
> > around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
> > second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>
> >http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>
> > The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
> > climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
> > boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
> > orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
> > responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>
> > Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
> > day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
> > human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
> > which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
> > orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
> > they too make the same error over and over again -
>
> >http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> > So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
> > rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
> > given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
> > responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
> > motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
> > anybody come close.
>
> > You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
> > there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>
> > Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
> > learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
> > your concepts going.
>
> orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
> can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
> is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
> Journal.
>
> josephus
>
Nobody has ever determined the value for axial rotation as an isolated
motion and it is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
fractions thereof whichg contemporaries believe.
I concede that the means by which the equable 24 hour day was
transfered to the axial cycle as 'constant' in principle (thereby
allowing terrestrial longitudes and clock time to mesh at 24 hours/360
degrees) is a delicate principle and civil and military authorities
may not be aware of it but the system inherited from F;lamsteed's
false proof for constant axial rotation via zodiacal geometry is
shocking from every type of angle.
So, we are a technologically advanced society who have yet to isolate
axial rotation because it interferes with late 17th century agendas by
Flamsteed/Newton and adopt ideas for the Earth's axial and orbital
motions that exist only in the imagination.Anybody who wonders what
happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
is badly wrong.
I look at what the website from the navy had to say -
"Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the
Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. "
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
The second was never defined in terms of axial rotation,nor the
hour ,not even the parent 24 hour cycle from which equable
hours,minutes and seconds are derived,again,the timekeeping
astronomers exploited the means by which one 24 hour cycle elapses
into the next 24 hour cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as
though it were 'constant',it still remains that way.The extraction of
axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been accomplished but
it sure needs to be.
You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a quasi-
commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature .Like
it or not,Western civilisation ,imperfect though it may be,is built on
a Christian foundation and although its merit system and civil/
military authority may be Roman for the most part,it allowed for
some of the greatest human individual achievements and was always
rightly defended.Looking at the navy promote an empirical ideology
like the 'leap second' correction as applied to axial rotation it is
hard to imagine that they are defending a concept which has rotted
Western astronomy from within and destroyed the merit system to boot
and all because a man (Flamsteed) made a simple mistake.
In all respect I do not care for the politics,the technical details
explicitly determine that axial rotation has never been isolated and
determined whether the motion is constant or not.I can also definitely
state that it is Not,I repeat, not anywhere close to 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds or parts thereof -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Brian Tung wrote:
>
> >>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
> >>>request.
>
> >>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
> >>prompts them.
>
> >>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
> >>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
> >>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
> >>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
> >>someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
>
> >>It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
> >>certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
> >>universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
> >>of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
> >>seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
> >>Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
> >>Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
> >>was a conflict between them.
>
> >>It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
> >>motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
> >>heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
> >>centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
> >>understanding straightforwards.
>
> >>Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
> >>highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
> >>*really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
> >>- and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
> >>passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
> >>sidewalk! Again, it's hard for me to think of a way to effectively
> >>bridge that kind of conceptual gap.
>
> >>Still, at least some good has come out of all this. The debates
> >>inspired me to add, to my web site, a page
>
> >>http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> >>explaining the causes behind the Equation of Time more clearly and
> >>explicitly than other pages I have seen on the web have done.
>
> >>John Savard
>
> --
> I go sailing in the Summer and
> look at STARS in the Winter.
> "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
> Will Rogers Jr.
> "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
> it is what you know that aint so"
> Josh Billings.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
* http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 06:05:39
From: josephus
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>>
>>>"Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
>>>and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
>>>minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
>>>days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
>>>those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>>
>>>The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
>>>axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
>>>axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
>>>certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>>
>>>Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
>>>Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
>>>'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
>>>something is badly wrong -
>>
>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...
>>
>>>Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
>>>rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
>>>has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
>>>numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
>>>important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
>>>relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
>>>generate the seasons.
>>
>>>You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
>>>around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
>>>second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>>
>>>http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>>
>>>The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
>>>climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
>>>boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
>>>orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
>>>responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>>
>>>Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
>>>day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
>>>human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
>>>which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
>>>orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
>>>they too make the same error over and over again -
>>
>>>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>>
>>>So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
>>>rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
>>>given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
>>>responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
>>>motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
>>>anybody come close.
>>
>>>You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
>>>there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>>
>>>Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
>>>learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
>>>your concepts going.
>>
>>orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
>>can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
>>is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
>>Journal.
>>
>> josephus
>>
>
>
> Nobody has ever determined the value for axial rotation as an isolated
> motion and it is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
> fractions thereof whichg contemporaries believe.
>
> I concede that the means by which the equable 24 hour day was
> transfered to the axial cycle as 'constant' in principle (thereby
> allowing terrestrial longitudes and clock time to mesh at 24 hours/360
> degrees) is a delicate principle and civil and military authorities
> may not be aware of it but the system inherited from F;lamsteed's
> false proof for constant axial rotation via zodiacal geometry is
> shocking from every type of angle.
>
> So, we are a technologically advanced society who have yet to isolate
> axial rotation because it interferes with late 17th century agendas by
> Flamsteed/Newton and adopt ideas for the Earth's axial and orbital
> motions that exist only in the imagination.Anybody who wonders what
> happens to variable orbital speed when the constant cyclical value of
> 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is proposed will get an inkling that something
> is badly wrong.
>
> I look at what the website from the navy had to say -
>
> "Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the
> Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. "
>
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> The second was never defined in terms of axial rotation,nor the
> hour ,not even the parent 24 hour cycle from which equable
> hours,minutes and seconds are derived,again,the timekeeping
> astronomers exploited the means by which one 24 hour cycle elapses
> into the next 24 hour cycle and applied it to the axial cycle as
> though it were 'constant',it still remains that way.The extraction of
> axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been accomplished but
> it sure needs to be.
>
I actually read and post in several ng. I have of course been in
talk.origins, sci.skeptic, sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur and others.
> You are a visitor from the empiricist talk.origins forum,a quasi-
> commie group * that imagines Christ and Christianity as a throwback to
> some era where men did not reason correctly or understand nature .Like
> it or not,Western civilisation ,imperfect though it may be,is built on
> a Christian foundation and although its merit system and civil/
> military authority may be Roman for the most part,it allowed for
> some of the greatest human individual achievements and was always
> rightly defended.Looking at the navy promote an empirical ideology
> like the 'leap second' correction as applied to axial rotation it is
> hard to imagine that they are defending a concept which has rotted
> Western astronomy from within and destroyed the merit system to boot
> and all because a man (Flamsteed) made a simple mistake.
>
historically I could agree, but MODERN ASTROMETRY does not use the
second the way you assert. there are SEVERAL kinds of seconds. and it
depends on what kind of calculation, you are making. the astronomical
day is the standard of time unit. Most of the formulas I use are
expressed in day and Julian centuries. Laboratories care about seconds.
the astronomical records are usually in barycenter time. but that is not
equal to UT or wall clock time.
sidereal time for EARTH is 365.256363 this particular constant in this
formula
K^2/(r*PI) * (365.256363)^2 * (1+1/328900.55) ==
(1.0000000109)^(1/3) = 1.00000036397 AU
observe that Time is in days and distance is in Astronomical Unities (AU)
> In all respect I do not care for the politics,the technical details
> explicitly determine that axial rotation has never been isolated and
> determined whether the motion is constant or not.I can also definitely
> state that it is Not,I repeat, not anywhere close to 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds or parts thereof -
that is just not true. Mean time is , but UT is not.
and there are tables to calculate nutation. the wobble due to Lunar and
other influences. I really dont understand how we could calculate
nutation and not know the earth rotation is not constant.
the period of the MOON is 27.6221 days and it oscillates due to
solar influence. the moon was used to establish time. this is why
Atomic Time is the new standard. the only people who really care are
astronomers. nobody else needs to know about BARYCENTER TIME, EPHEMERIS
TIME, or any variety than WALL CLOCK TIME or UT.
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>Brian Tung wrote:
>>
>>>>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
>>>>>request.
>>
>>>>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
>>>>prompts them.
>>
>>>>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
>>>>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
>>>>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
>>>>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
>>>>someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
>>
>>>>It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
>>>>certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
>>>>universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
>>>>of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
>>>>seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
>>>>Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
>>>>Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
>>>>was a conflict between them.
>>
>>>>It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
>>>>motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
>>>>heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
>>>>centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
>>>>understanding straightforwards.
>>
>>>>Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
>>>>highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
>>>>*really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
>>>>- and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
>>>>passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
>>>>sidewalk! Again, it's hard for me to think of a way to effectively
>>>>bridge that kind of conceptual gap.
>>
>>>>Still, at least some good has come out of all this. The debates
>>>>inspired me to add, to my web site, a page
>>
>>>>http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>>
>>>>explaining the causes behind the Equation of Time more clearly and
>>>>explicitly than other pages I have seen on the web have done.
>>
>>>>John Savard
>>
>>--
>>I go sailing in the Summer and
>>look at STARS in the Winter.
>>"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
>> Will Rogers Jr.
>>"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
>> it is what you know that aint so"
>> Josh Billings.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> * http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html
>
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 11:22:37
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> but I
> didn't know of any lower-cost alternatives, except for one called a
> "Pretoria" eyepiece which is currently unavailable.
There is a 30mm eyepiece - with an 80 degree field of view, instead of
82 degrees - offered in ads in Sky and Telescope by a company called
"1rpd"... one revolution per day.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 08:05:29
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> Wow! Currently my favorite eyepiece is a Garrett Optical 30mm with
> an apparent field of view (AFOV) of 82 degrees (matching the field
> of a Nagler, although not the edge sharpness, etc., of course!)
I'll need to find out more information about this; I know that the
Meade Ultra-Wide came out shortly after the Nagler, and was
comparable, and then there was the Speers-WALER, which was,
apparently, also comparable in quality and cost (but larger in bulk) -
although its bulk reminded me of the Dilworth design, which is said to
offer a field of view comparable to that of the Nagler but with even
better quality (at least compared to the Type I Nagler)... but I
didn't know of any lower-cost alternatives, except for one called a
"Pretoria" eyepiece which is currently unavailable.
The Sky and Telescope article on the Ethos showed a comparative
diagram of a few eyepiece fields of view; I've been inspired by the
arrival of that eyepiece to do a somewhat more comprehensive one on my
web site at
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/opt04.htm
where I include 40 degrees for a typical Kellner, 45 degrees for a
typical Orthoscopic, 50 degrees for a typical Plossl, 60 degrees for
the Erfle (today, the Radian offers that with better quality, but I
had been giving TeleVue enough plugs...), as well as 82 degrees for
the Nagler, 100 degrees for the forthcoming Ethos... and 120 degrees,
which was provided by a design used in military equipment designed at
Zeiss.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 06:16:56
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Margo Schulter wrote:
>> Wow! Currently my favorite eyepiece is a Garrett Optical 30mm with
>> an apparent field of view (AFOV) of 82 degrees (matching the field
>> of a Nagler, although not the edge sharpness, etc., of course!)
>
> I'll need to find out more information about this; I know that the
> Meade Ultra-Wide came out shortly after the Nagler, and was
> comparable, and then there was the Speers-WALER, which was,
> apparently, also comparable in quality and cost (but larger in bulk) -
> although its bulk reminded me of the Dilworth design, which is said to
> offer a field of view comparable to that of the Nagler but with even
> better quality (at least compared to the Type I Nagler)... but I
> didn't know of any lower-cost alternatives, except for one called a
> "Pretoria" eyepiece which is currently unavailable.
Hi, John, and maybe I should briefly explain that "medium-range"
eyepieces with an AFOV of 80 or 82 degrees have become rather common.
The Garrett Optical version is similar to other brands such as the
1rpd, BirdsEye (Anacortes), and Moonfish.
With these eyepieces, there is a known and acknowledged imperfection
by comparison to a Nagler which nevertheless may be quite cost-effective
for many scopes, and more especially those with slower or moderately
fast optics. I'm happy with the Garrett Optical, but with my Sky-Watcher
20cm f/6 Dob can notice _some_ field curvature or the like. Actually
f/6 is around the lower end of the recommended range; on an SCT at
f/10 or f/12, it might be much closer to Nagler quality.
This is maybe a bit analogous to the situation with PostScript language
fonts in the early years of desktop publishing when Adobe's special
Type 1 algorithm for "hinting" (altering the outline for a type character
a bit to produce best results with low-resolution devices) was secret.
If you had a high-resolution phototypesetting machine, then you probably
wouldn't notice much difference between Adobe Type 1 and a "third party"
Type 3 font that anyone could produce. It was actually the _less
expensive_ devices, like laser printers of the time, where the ability
of Adobe's propriety routines to produce better results on devices with
fewer pixels could really make a difference.
Of course, quality and satisfaction can also be in the eye of the
beholder, whether it's typesetting or telescope optics. Thus a naive
reader of a newsletter produced by the new method of desktop publishing
might say, "Wow, you did this with a personal computer?" while a purist
might say, "Look closely and see all the horrible jaggies on this
type!" Similarly, reviewers such as the famous Unk Rod here have found
that even on Dobs considerably below f/6, those less expensive "not
quite Nagler" eyepieces can be quite pleasing despite the known
imperfections.
By the way, if we're looking at eyepieces more closely comparable
to Naglers in quality, then the William Optics UWAN series seems
one leading competitor nowadays, rather like the Meade 4000 series.
> The Sky and Telescope article on the Ethos showed a comparative
> diagram of a few eyepiece fields of view; I've been inspired by the
> arrival of that eyepiece to do a somewhat more comprehensive one on my
> web site at
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/opt04.htm
>
> where I include 40 degrees for a typical Kellner, 45 degrees for a
> typical Orthoscopic, 50 degrees for a typical Plossl, 60 degrees for
> the Erfle (today, the Radian offers that with better quality, but I
> had been giving TeleVue enough plugs...), as well as 82 degrees for
> the Nagler, 100 degrees for the forthcoming Ethos... and 120 degrees,
> which was provided by a design used in military equipment designed at
> Zeiss.
Your page is a nice summary, and I want to read over all the descriptions
of different eyepiece types.
>
> John Savard
>
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 07:54:43
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
josephus wrote:
> orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
> can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
> is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
> Journal.
That is correct, although taking all the adjustments into account
could prove difficult if one is trying to introduce beginners to the
motions of the Solar System.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 04:16:07
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
"Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
something is badly wrong -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
generate the seasons.
You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
they too make the same error over and over again -
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
anybody come close.
You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
your concepts going.
On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Brian Tung wrote:
> > By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
> > request.
>
> I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
> prompts them.
>
> While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
> attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
> person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
> sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
> someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
>
> It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
> certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
> universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
> of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
> seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
> Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
> Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
> was a conflict between them.
>
> It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
> motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
> heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
> centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
> understanding straightforwards.
>
> Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
> highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
> *really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
> - and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
> passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
> sidewalk! Again, it's hard for me to think of a way to effectively
> bridge that kind of conceptual gap.
>
> Still, at least some good has come out of all this. The debates
> inspired me to add, to my web site, a page
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> explaining the causes behind the Equation of Time more clearly and
> explicitly than other pages I have seen on the web have done.
>
> John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 06:31:37
From: josephus
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> You are doing no more than rewriting the same old error -
>
> "Against the backdrop of the distant stars, the Earth has two simple
> and regular motions. It turns on its axis once every 23 hours, 56
> minutes, and 4.1005 seconds, and it orbits the Sun once every 365
> days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.7676 seconds (these figures being
> those which applied at the start of the year 2000)."
>
> The Equation of Time system transfers the equable 24 hour day to the
> axial cycle as though it were 'constant' in principle which means that
> axial rotation as an isolated motion has never been determined and it
> certainly is nowhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> Even the most indifferent investigator will find it odd that if the
> Earth has a variable orbital speed and it does not show up in the
> 'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion,then
> something is badly wrong -
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> Again,for those who take astronomy seriously,the extraction of axial
> rotation from variable orbital speed would be a very difficult task,it
> has never been done and it certainly is not going to be achieved by
> numbskulls who have no feel for the material.The reason it is
> important is for climatological reasons insofar as it is the
> relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations that
> generate the seasons.
>
> You cannot reference axial rotation to the distant stars and then turn
> around and justify orbital motion to the Sun in terms of a 3 minute 56
> second/.986 degree axial coordinate -
>
> http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
>
> The idea that a location rotates to noon every 24 hours is lethal for
> climatological studies insofar as the solar radiation/orbital shadow
> boundary alters both longitudinally and latitudinally (due to the
> orbital motion of the Earth) with the longitudinal component
> responsible for the observation of unequal natural noon cycles.
>
> Is it so difficult to grasp that the relationship between the 24 hour
> day and the axial cycle never went beyond a correlation between the
> human devised 'average 24 hour cycle' and a 'constant axial cycle'
> which never refered to axial rotation as an isolated motion much less
> orbital motion.I look at the justification from the US navy site and
> they too make the same error over and over again -
>
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
>
> So much for national security !,the point is that isolating axial
> rotation has yet to be achieved and it does need to be achieved pronto
> given climatological studies are dependent on it.Perhaps there are
> responsible people who have the ability to split the Earth's compound
> motions into their respective isolated states but I have yet to see
> anybody come close.
>
> You do not have the knack for these things yet there are people out
> there who do and maybe see how important it is to get it right.
>
> Sorry for calling you a halfwit,you are only repeating what you have
> learned and can safely continue believing whatever you need to keep
> your concepts going.
>
orbital motion is not constant. the earth has nutation and even weather
can cause changes. this is why standards uses the Atomic system and UT
is defined with this system. It is all explained in the Astronomical
Journal.
josephus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 3:13 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>Brian Tung wrote:
>>
>>>By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
>>>request.
>>
>>I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
>>prompts them.
>>
>>While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
>>attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
>>person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
>>sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
>>someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
>>
>>It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
>>certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
>>universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
>>of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
>>seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
>>Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
>>Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
>>was a conflict between them.
>>
>>It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
>>motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
>>heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
>>centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
>>understanding straightforwards.
>>
>>Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
>>highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
>>*really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
>>- and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
>>passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
>>sidewalk! Again, it's hard for me to think of a way to effectively
>>bridge that kind of conceptual gap.
>>
>>Still, at least some good has come out of all this. The debates
>>inspired me to add, to my web site, a page
>>
>>http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>>
>>explaining the causes behind the Equation of Time more clearly and
>>explicitly than other pages I have seen on the web have done.
>>
>>John Savard
>
>
>
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 19:45:03
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
oriel36 wrote:
> It is a simple comparison and I am not obliged to convince you that
> there is a correct way and an incorrect way to look at the natural
> noon cycle .
You are not obliged to convince him, or to convince me, no. I should
hope, though, that you do seek to marshal your arguments so that they
might be understood, and could prove convincing at least to someone
perhaps more open-minded than I might be.
> Here is the incorrect way -
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Yes, that diagram does have a mistake in it, because the 24 hour day
is only an average, as you correctly point out.
> Here is the correct way -
>
> " 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. " Huygens
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
But the paragraph you quote contradicts nothing in the established
view of astronomy.
> The astronomical jewel represents a specific correlation.The human
> devised 'average' 24 hour cycle was transfered to the axial cycle as a
> 'constant' while not directly refering to axial rotation.As each 24
> hour day elaspes into the next 24 hour day by way of the noon
> cycle,the timekeeping astronomers overlaid the 24 hour day on
> planetary geometry ,where 4 minutes of clock time equals 1 degree of
> geographical seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.
Yes. And the cause of this relationship is that the 24 hour average
day is based on the actual solar day, of which it is an average. And
the actual time of day within the solar day is an *angle* between the
meridian and the Sun's position, and so the 360 degrees of the round
Earth mean that the local meridian goes through 360 degrees of angle
with the Sun.
> Axial rotation has never been isolated and it certainly is not
> fractions of a second off the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second
> value,nowhere even close.
Given that the Earth goes around the Sun in 365 and 1/4 solar days,
approximately, and that
(1/(365 1/4 days)) + (1/(24 hours)) = (1/(23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds))
then, unless you deny that the 365 1/4 day year represents isolated
orbital motion, your denial that 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds
represents isolated axial rotation is clearly wrong.
This is not something that is open to debate or argument; it is as
plain as the fact that 2 + 3 equals 5, and not four or six. You must
deny that the 365 1/4 day year represents isolated orbital motion if
you are to deny that 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds represents
isolated axial rotation.
> As the change in orbital
> orientation is a distinct motion there is no need to justify is
> through axial orientation which is seperate motion.
Establishment astronomers explain the seasons through the Earth having
a *fixed* axial orientation (the North pole ever points towards
Polaris) and a changing orbital orientation (the Earth moves from one
side of the Sun to the other, upon a plane (the ecliptic) to which its
axis is not perpendicular, and hence its axis, unchanging in
direction, points at one time towards the Sun, and at another time
away); therefore, if your words mean what they appear to say, they
would be an affirmation, and not a contradiction, of the existing
conventional understanding of the seasons.
This is why I feel, and why others feel, that it is you and not we who
have a misunderstanding of how the motions in our Solar System
operate.
John Savard
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 12:51:20
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 17, 9:55 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 12:17 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If the jewels of astronomy are being dragged through the mud at least
> > now you know they are there .
>
> Hi:
>
> No I don't, and no matter how often you spout your foolishness, I
> won't and you will still be wrong. At least your fellow Creationists
> are honest about their disdain for and "disbelief" in science.
It is a simple comparison and I am not obliged to convince you that
there is a correct way and an incorrect way to look at the natural
noon cycle .
Here is the incorrect way -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Here is the correct way -
" 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. " Huygens
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The astronomical jewel represents a specific correlation.The human
devised 'average' 24 hour cycle was transfered to the axial cycle as a
'constant' while not directly refering to axial rotation.As each 24
hour day elaspes into the next 24 hour day by way of the noon
cycle,the timekeeping astronomers overlaid the 24 hour day on
planetary geometry ,where 4 minutes of clock time equals 1 degree of
geographical seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.
Axial rotation has never been isolated and it certainly is not
fractions of a second off the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second
value,nowhere even close.
It is the fact that when even images are availible to show how
planetary orbital orientation changes and especially now with the
approaching Equinox that I still am here trying to explain basic
astronomical principles such as how clocks are kept in sync with the
axial cycle.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
The longitudinal change in orbital orientation causes the unequal noon
cycles and ultimately causes the seasons.As the change in orbital
orientation is a distinct motion there is no need to justify is
through axial orientation which is seperate motion.If you cannot
interpret two distinct motions and orientations in Uranus then you
stand little chance of appreciating what is occuring on Earth.
|
| |
Date: 08 Sep 2007 07:13:44
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
> request.
I hate to say no to such polite requests, because I understand what
prompts them.
While, at present, this group is getting gunked up by a deliberate
attack - and we have other sources of noise as well, such as the
person who keeps complaining about Starlord, or our resident Christian
sidereal astrologer - it makes sense that replies are only encouraging
someone whose posts are viewed as "clutter".
It may actually be that I will do that soon. Rational argument
certainly will be difficult with someone who dismisses the law of
universal gravitation as an insult by mathematicians to the great work
of Copernicus and Kepler. I had always hoped that I could lead him to
seeing where he went wrong; how it was that he misunderstood either
Copernicus and Kepler (and Huyghens) on the one hand, or Newton (and
Flamsteed) on the other, leading to his mistaken conclusion that there
was a conflict between them.
It seems that his objection is to attempting to decompose compound
motions; he rejects the idea of gaining a benefit from having
heliocentric astronomy by looking at the Solar System from a Sun-
centered point of view so as to make our calculations and
understanding straightforwards.
Most people who look at a movie of one car passing another on the
highway won't conclude that it constitutes a proof of how cars
*really* pass one another - from the point of view of one of the cars
- and a disproof of the pretentious theory that we can understand cars
passing each other from the viewpoint of a pedestrian standing on the
sidewalk! Again, it's hard for me to think of a way to effectively
bridge that kind of conceptual gap.
Still, at least some good has come out of all this. The debates
inspired me to add, to my web site, a page
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
explaining the causes behind the Equation of Time more clearly and
explicitly than other pages I have seen on the web have done.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 13:55:27
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 17, 12:17 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> If the jewels of astronomy are being dragged through the mud at least
> now you know they are there .
Hi:
No I don't, and no matter how often you spout your foolishness, I
won't and you will still be wrong. At least your fellow Creationists
are honest about their disdain for and "disbelief" in science.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 10:17:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 16, 10:19 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2:52 pm,oriel36<geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 8:24 pm, RMOLLISE <rmoll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 1:05 pm,oriel36<geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The only acceptable answer to the question - what is the value for
> > > > axial rotation through 360 degrees ? is that it has yet to be
> > > > determined.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Sure it has. You could even answer it for yourself if you'd shut down
> > > the computer, get outside and _actually_ look up at the sky. But I am
> > > sure you will never, ever do that. ;-)
>
> > The correlation between clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial
> > longitudes condensed in the value of 24 hours/360 degrees is probably
> > the most stable and enjoyable facets in all astronomy,it is a
> > complimentary offshoot of the reasoning of Copernicus and the
> > intricate transfer of the 'average' 24 hour day to a 'constant' axial
> > cycle should be rightly loved by any intelligent person.It only
> > depends on one observation - that the noon cycles are unequal and the
> > 24 hour day is a human devised concept.
>
> > I am at a loss to explain what has happened,to people, the rich
> > astronomical heritage can hardly be set against a concept where a
> > star returning to a location represents a definitive idea for axial
> > and orbital motion,it merely represents a way to appreciate the 1461
> > day calendrical cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
> > days but nothing else.
>
> > I cannot say what happens next,I truly believe that it is only a
> > matter of shifting from a narrow view to a more comprehensive look at
> > the topic to break away from the astrological of the Ra/Dec system .I
> > will say nothing of the toll or the mounting pressure to get a single
> > affirmation that a great tragedy has occured in Western
> > civilisation,the loss of an entire astronomical heritage over a basic
> > and forgivable error -
>
> > "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
> > doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
> > isochronical..." Flamsteed
>
> > Nobody can enjoy the riches of astronomy than contemporary imaging
> > technology has to offer as it is applied to heliocentric reasoning
> > while retaining a zodiacal framework yet that is exactly what the
> > correlation between rotation through 360 degrees and 23 hours 56
> > minutes 04 seconds amount to.What is happening is not just wrong,it is
> > dangerously wrong and the worst part is nobody feels it is their
> > responsibility
>
> > Don't you dare teach children that the 'sidereal time' justification
> > for the Earth's motions is correct.
>
> What happened, you little silly, was a thing called the "Renaissance."
> I hate to tell you this, but that was when scientists embraced
> empiricism, and gave up blindly following Aristotle. I'm sure you're
> SHOCKED, SHOCKED.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This well shocked mind is never prepared to believe that men would
willingly ignore the basic astronomical procedure which keeps clocks
in sync with the axial cycle.I can talk about the insanity of the
commonplace mind in this matter but would much prefer to believe that
there are genuinely intelligent people who have not given up and
decided for themselves to remain quiet.
The transfer of the equable 24 hour day to terrestrial longitudes as a
24 hour/360 degree equivalency never directly references the
correlation between clocks and the axial cycle to axial rotation.The
system exploits the 'average 24 hour day cycle and how each cycle
elapses into the next cycle and transfers it to the axial cycle as a
'constant'.It Never,Ever directly refers to axial rotation no matter
how many empiricists believe otherwise -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Humanity suffered something of an anti-renaissance in the late 17th
century,at least in astronomy, and that 'sidereal time' justification
for the axial and orbital motion of the Earth encapsulates it
If the jewels of astronomy are being dragged through the mud at least
now you know they are there .As a Christian,I see the empiricists
taunt the creationist based on a too literal intepretation of the
Bible but they themselves fall into the same trap with the great works
of astronomy.A too literal intepretation of clocks.the axial cycle
and terrestrial longitudes leads to the belief that the 24 hour
cycle refers to axial rotation directly or that axial rotation can be
discerned directly from a zodiacal framework.
This is a fullblown tragedy that is not going to go away.
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 18:00:15
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
palsing wrote:
> This just in, the street price for the Ethos is to be $620...
Yes, I just saw that too as a search turned up a store where it can be
pre-ordered.
At least that's *one* piece of information beyond what the S&T article
had, even though the patents aren't through the system yet to give the
prescription.
For military binoculars, eyepieces have been made with up to a 120
degree field of view, but I would suspect at that point it will be
*very* difficult to have good quality.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 12:28:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 7, 5:22 pm, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
> > Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> > applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> > has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> > the truly Nagleriest)
>
> Better get to a doctor. Naegleria survival rates are not good... :-o
>
> > and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> > will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
>
> > and a 100 degree field of view.
>
> There was some notice of this a few months ago, on SAA. I forget who
> mentioned it, but I think it was archived on Google.
>
> By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
> request.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
The guy was the only one among you who now openly supports the idea
that axial rotation through 360 degrees is constant in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds even though it is proposed to the rest of humanity
as a fact.
To isolate axial rotation from variable orbital speeds is an
incredibly dificult task,even wuth current technology and I assure you
it is not going to be done by people who believe in an error created
by one unfortunate guy -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed
That halfwit Savard was the last guy who made any sort of attempt to
defend the astrological cult but even I get tired of dragging the
works of Copernicus,Kepler Huygens through the stench of this forum in
order to walen up at least a few genuine people to productive
astronomy.As a Christian,the saying of "pearls before swine
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 09:22:40
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
John Savard wrote:
> Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> the truly Nagleriest)
Better get to a doctor. Naegleria survival rates are not good... :-o
> and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
>
> and a 100 degree field of view.
There was some notice of this a few months ago, on SAA. I forget who
mentioned it, but I think it was archived on Google.
By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
request.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 21:15:16
From: I.N. Galidakis
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Brian Tung wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, please stop arguing with Gerald Kelleher. Just a gentle
> request.
When one argues will Kelleher, he gets extra super-dooper strength, like
Superman on twinkies or when "Luke uses the Force" in Star Wars.
--
I.N. Galidakis
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 10:04:04
From: palsing
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 6, 8:45 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Just picked up the latest Sky and Telescope today.
>
> Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> the truly Nagleriest), and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
>
> and a 100 degree field of view.
>
> Magnification _isn't_ the only thing we're concerned about here on
> this newsgroup!
>
> John Savard
This just in, the street price for the Ethos is to be $620...
\Paul
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 12:22:59
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
> Just picked up the latest Sky and Telescope today.
>
> Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> the truly Nagleriest), and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
>
> and a 100 degree field of view.
>
> Magnification _isn't_ the only thing we're concerned about here on
> this newsgroup!
>
> John Savard
>
I looked through one (daytime at a target) at this year's NEAF and it was
amazing, but I was unable to see all 100 degrees in the Ethos at one time. I
have been using a 14mm Meade UWA which a guy in our club recently donated to
our club, and at 84 degrees it provides exceptional views. I don't think I
would pay a big premium for the extra 16 degrees, but of course using one
out under the stars is the only test that counts.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 09:11:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
On Sep 7, 4:45 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Just picked up the latest Sky and Telescope today.
>
> Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> the truly Nagleriest), and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
>
> and a 100 degree field of view.
>
> Magnification _isn't_ the only thing we're concerned about here on
> this newsgroup!
>
> John Savard
I have always told these people that limiting astronomy to
magnification is what is destroying this noble discipline otherwise
people like yourself who are full of useless opinions will start
imagining that you know what you are talking about.You just repeat
what you learned and can do no more while there are a few people here
who could connect with the great astronomical tradition that exists
beyond the rude intrusion of mathematicians who have no feeling for
astronomy,its methods or insights .
Let them suffer your kind for a while,go ahead and tell about
astronomy beyond magnification and the great concepts that you have
and they will eventually see themselves as they truly are,impoverished
slaves of an empirical cult.Oscar Wilde expressed your kind perfectly
-
"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
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 15:44:57
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Just picked up the latest Sky and Telescope today.
>
> Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> the truly Nagleriest), and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
Hi, John.
I've seen invitations to preorder this new eyepiece at certain sites
on the Web, and I guess lots of us are curious.
> and a 100 degree field of view.
Wow! Currently my favorite eyepiece is a Garrett Optical 30mm with
an apparent field of view (AFOV) of 82 degrees (matching the field
of a Nagler, although not the edge sharpness, etc., of course!)
and a true field of view (TFOV) with my 20cm f/6 Dob of 2.05 degrees
or 2d05' at 40X. Using my 2X Barlow with it would give a tad more
than 1 degree at 80X; the new Televue would give something like
1.083 degree at 92X (to be really precise, I'd need to know the
field stop -- 43mm for the Garrett Optical).
By the way, a curious anecdote. Once I called TeleVue to ask about
one of their Plossls -- and was very surprised to be talking with
none other than Al Nagler. For a newbie, that was quite something!
Among other things, he emphasized that calculating TFOV in radians
by taking the field stop and dividing by the telescope's focal
length, then converting to degrees if desired, is more accurate
than the common method of dividing AFOV by magnification. I wonder
if the "Radian" name for one family of TeleVue eyepieces reflects
this point.
Anyway, it also became quickly clear that he favors wide-angle
eyepieces -- interesting to see how this latest development
will catch on, and how it will perform in really fast scopes (say
f/4.5). Might it become another reason for users of such scopes
to consider something like the TeleVue Paracorr?
> > Magnification _isn't_ the only thing we're concerned
> > about here on this newsgroup!
That's certainly true, although one appeal of a 13mm eyepiece
with 100 degree AFOV is "the field you're getting now, with
much more magnification to show detail or alleviate the
effects of light pollution."
However, people might also just enjoy the sheer immersion
of the view -- sort of "the IMAX of amateur astronomy."
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 09:19:40
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> Wow! Currently my favorite eyepiece is a Garrett Optical 30mm with
> an apparent field of view (AFOV) of 82 degrees (matching the field
> of a Nagler, although not the edge sharpness, etc., of course!)
> and a true field of view (TFOV) with my 20cm f/6 Dob of 2.05 degrees
> or 2d05' at 40X. Using my 2X Barlow with it would give a tad more
> than 1 degree at 80X; the new Televue would give something like
> 1.083 degree at 92X (to be really precise, I'd need to know the
> field stop -- 43mm for the Garrett Optical).
In fact, you would need to know both the field stop and the focal length
(of the eyepiece) to four significant digits. It is possible to measure
the field stop that accurately, with a caliper, but the focal length is
much dicier. In my opinion, one would need a pretty elaborate setup to
measure it that accurately.
> By the way, a curious anecdote. Once I called TeleVue to ask about
> one of their Plossls -- and was very surprised to be talking with
> none other than Al Nagler. For a newbie, that was quite something!
> Among other things, he emphasized that calculating TFOV in radians
> by taking the field stop and dividing by the telescope's focal
> length, then converting to degrees if desired, is more accurate
> than the common method of dividing AFOV by magnification. I wonder
> if the "Radian" name for one family of TeleVue eyepieces reflects
> this point.
It was originally supposed to reflect a 57 (57.3?) degree AFOV, but
Nagler eventually decided to increase that field to an even 60 degrees.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 20:44:29
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > wrote:
> In fact, you would need to know both the field stop and the focal length
> (of the eyepiece) to four significant digits. It is possible to measure
> the field stop that accurately, with a caliper, but the focal length is
> much dicier. In my opinion, one would need a pretty elaborate setup to
> measure it that accurately.
Good points! Thanks, Brian, for the reminder that these calculations
are likely to be quite approximate regardless of the method used.
I've seen some reviews questioning how closely certain eyepieces
match their specs in practice, however much or little it may effect
the actual viewing experience.
[On the TeleVue Radian line]
> It was originally supposed to reflect a 57 (57.3?) degree AFOV, but
> Nagler eventually decided to increase that field to an even 60 degrees.
>
That's a very logical explanation -- and also an illustraton of how
Al Nager is out to outdo himself. Could we call 60 degrees a "baker's
radian"?
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 23:10:18
From: Minnity & Frankenstein
Subject: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> Just picked up the latest Sky and Telescope today.
>
> Details are scant - and no new patents, or even published
> applications, by Al Nagler are visible in the USPTO - but Al Nagler
> has managed to out-Nagler the Nagler (which makes sense, him *being*
> the truly Nagleriest), and coming soon to an astronomy store near you
> will be an eyepiece with a 13mm focal length...
>
> and a 100 degree field of view.
>
> Magnification _isn't_ the only thing we're concerned about here on
> this newsgroup!
>
> John Savard
sounds like a MIN report!
|
|
