| |
Main
Date: 03 Sep 2007 15:56:54
From: John Savard
Subject: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
As you know, every four years, we have to add a day to the year to keep
it in step with the seasons.
Except for three years out of every 400, and even the Gregorian calendar
is an approximation to the tropical year.
I obtained cheaply - perhaps from the bargain table at a used book store
- a "new age" book about the Mayan calendar that I thought would be good
for a few laughs.
People were offended - and rightly so - when a television evangelist
said that the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 might have happened
partly because God had stopped watching over America quite so hard,
because it rebelled against Him by not retaining and enforcing the laws
which used to punish homosexual acts.
This book presented another theory.
Instead of the terrorist carnage of September 11, 2001 being a totally
avoidable event - caused due to the evil and wicked choices of Osama bin
Laden and his henchmen, the book referred to it as "the Inevitable
Event".
And *why* was it inevitable?
Well, you see, America, and Western Civilization in general, was in
disharmony with God, Nature, the Universe, and the Mayan Calendar by
breaking the "Law of Time"... and having these dratted, asymmetrical
leap years!
And so he expresses the desire that the world might attain world peace
by adopting his "Thirteen Moon" calendar; like the World Calendar
proposal, it would have 365 days of which 364 would be on the same day
of the week every year.
But it would have no leap years.
I suppose thirteen months of 28 days is closer to our present habits
than 18 months of 20 days, and has the nice bonus that there is only one
day "outside of time" rather than five unlucky Uayeb days.
He refers even to his proposed calendar as "Quranic" of all things;
well, like the Islamic calendar of twelve lunar months of about 29 1/2
days, it will drift through the seasons, but rather more slowly.
However, while his book quotes Gandhi on the benefits of a world
calendar for world peace, a calendar at odds with the seasons is clearly
the expression of a particular religious view, and thus, like the Baha'i
calendar, I doubt that it can be considered as a serious candidate.
Also, breaking the regularity of the 7-day week for the day outside of
time isn't even consistent with what the Mayans did, since the 10-day
and 12-day weeks never skipped over Uayeb, but kept on going in regular
succession.
John Savard
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 18:59:28
From: Dr J R Stockton
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
In sci.astro.amateur message <1189136833.757291.162540@57g2000hsv.google
groups.com >, Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:47:13, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
posted:
>oriel36 wrote:
I have oriel36 killfiled, and recommend the practice.
>And his web site was very accurately informed about those leap seconds
>that are in actual current use. Leaping back and forth every year to
>stay with the sundial is not worth the bother, but avoiding a long-
>term cumulative error because our second is the wrong size is needed.
It has recently occurred to me that, as well as the Leap Year (which is
really just a container for a Leap Day) and the Leap Second, another
form of Leap will in principle be needed in the distant future.
Choose any long-range algorithm for the Date of Gregorian Easter Sunday
as Day-Of-March. Inspection will show, and test will confirm, that the
dates repeat with a period of 5,700,000 years (EW is/was wrong). It's
clear that consecutive Easters separated by less than a year are 12
lunations apart, and those separated by more than a year are 13
lunations apart. So, by counting, one can get the number of lunations
in the repeat (it's prime), and hence the exact length of the Gregorian
Lunar Month.
Compare that with the current Real Lunar Month; the agreement is very
good but not perfect; I find a discrepancy of about 0.1s, which amounts
to a whole day in umpteen years, by which time a Lunar Leap Day
(positive? negative?) will be needed.
Of course, the Easter Rules should be changed correspondingly when the
secular calendar is altered to deal with the errors of 4/100/400-year
rules; and that would be a good time to include any Lunar adjustment.
Also, the Lunar Month Length is drifting, like the day length; someone
must know the rate.
IMHO, an Astronomer Papal (by analogy with the Astronomer Royal),
preferably with initials GC, should be appointed to make recommendations
on the matter - after all, having Easter at New Moon would be a definite
infelicity.
The Hebrews must need an Astronomer Rabbinic, on analogous grounds.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ > - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 08:44:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 7, 1:24 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > I have shown why the 'sidereal time' justification for the axial and
> > orbital motion does not exist
>
> That is... arguable.
>
> > and how the orginal timekeeping
> > astronomers transfered the average 24 hour day to terrestrial
> > longitudes by exploiting their Equation of Time correction which
> > allows humanity to have the equable day and equable hours,minutes and
> > seconds
>
> One certainly can average out the difference between a mechanical
> clock and a sundial over the course of a year, but for that one needs
> a clock that will keep good time over a whole year.
>
> > and allow the correlation where 4 minutes of clock time
> > equals 1 degree of geographical seperation spanning the entire globe
> > as a 24 hour/360 degree system.
>
> Regardless of the period of the Earth's axial rotation, since the time
> of day depends on the relationship between a place on Earth and the
> Sun - "midnight" when it faces away, "noon" when it faces towards -
> the relationship between the 24 hours and the 360 degrees will indeed
> be exact, as they are but two different ways to express an angle.
>
> > "Since that for finding the Longitude, the Time of the day at the
> > place where you are must be known (as hath been said above) you must
> > have a care to observe that time as precisely as is possible. For
> > every minute of time, that you misreckon, makes a 4th part of a degree
> > in longitude, which amounts, near the Aequator, to above 15. English
> > miles, but less elsewhere. Wherefore to find the time of the day with
> > certainty, you are not to trust to the Observation of the Suns
> > greatest Altitude, thence to conclude that 'tis just Noon, or that the
> > Sun is in the South, unless, being betwixt the Tropicks, you have it
> > just in the Zenith. "
>
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> Nothing in that paragraph is changed by today's view of astronomy.
>
> > Had these people the intelligence to ask me how to untangle the
> > conceptual monsters from structural and timekeeping astronomy then
> > genuine dynamicists could work productively on the celestial dynamics
> > and structure but they do not.
>
> Without 'universal gravitation', productive work is less likely, not
> more likely.
>
> > I may have failed to express the insights of the great astronomers in
> > a manner they deserve but then again I do not have a monopoly on
> > explaining heliocentric astronomy,it just happens that I am the only
> > person doing it in a forum full of astrologers and their
> > constellational concerns.Judging from the popularity of Dava Sobel's
> > Longitude history and how clocks resolved it just shows the appetite
> > people have for astronomy even when they are assaulted with exotic
> > nonsense or forced to believe that magnification is the only thing an
> > astronomer does
>
> The only contradiction between the history of the determination of
> longitude in that book, or the achievements of Copernicus and Kepler,
> and the current understanding of the heavens which includes Newton and
> Flamsteed, is that which is made apparent to you through your own
> misunderstandings.
>
> One might, indeed, be able to dispense with bringing in the "fixed
> stars" on the basis that they are not needed and that they are not
> truly fixed. But that does not change the fact that they are very
> nearly fixed, or the fact that the periods of the orbits of the
> planets as given by Kepler's law refer to a system of directions from
> the Sun that is very nearly the same as the system of directions
> defined by the "fixed stars".
>
> And so, when the motions in the solar system are broken down into
> individual simple motions, so that the majesty of the heavens may be
> built up from components understandable even to the simple, one of
> those components is an axial rotation of the Earth with a 23 hour, 56
> minute, and 4 second period.
>
> In heliocentric astronomy, the Earth moves around the Sun, and so it
> loses one day a year from what it would have if its axial rotation
> alone determined the day with no influence from the change in
> direction to the Sun. The length of the "sidereal day" or axial
> rotation period, therefore, is shorter than 24 hours in order to
> provide the extra day that will be lost. As it is a necessary and
> inevitable consequence of the Earth going around the Sun, the fact
> that Copernicus might have chosen to express matters in a different
> way, because he was presenting his findings to a world that thought in
> a geocentric manner, rather than the world of today, where it is
> natural to think in a heliocentric fashion, does not imply our current
> explanations are false; they but express exactly the same phenomena in
> a more direct manner.
>
> > How do you continue when the basic astronomical fact which keep clocks
> > in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes is not
> > understood correctly ?
>
> We do not feel we have that problem. We continue; our numbers add up;
> when we look for the planets, they are where we expect to find them.
> We would think this would be difficult to achieve if our understanding
> was wrong.
>
> John Savard
I am delighted you speak for this group and will go on doing so,after
all they call themselves astronomers while believing that a star
returning to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds denotes the
axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees and the fiction of an
equable noon cycle and will teach it to children or anyone else who
will listen things which just do not happen -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
The Piltdown man episode* was an elaborate setup that was difficult
to spot until genuine competent men recognised the hoax *,the
'sidereal time' setup is'nt even elaborate,any intelligent person can
see it is a dud,a silly error that got out of hand yet is still
promoted as the value for axial rotation through 360 degrees -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
I have never once called people insane for being unfamiliar with the
actual principles which keep clocks in sync with the axial cycle and
terrestrial longitude (I confess that the transfer of the average 24
hour day to the principle of a 'constant axial cycle via the Equation
of Time correction can be delicate to understand ,) but there has to
be a time when even I cannot uphold the arguments in the face of this
mass insanity..It is not your pathetic defence that bothers me it is
the sheer silence from people who know what happened is a genuine
tragedy.
So.let them suffer you and your kind ,the energy which the real
astronomical principles generate is nothing like the exotic novelties
which emerged from concepts built on a zodiacal framework.You live a
nightmare of defending a concept for the Earth's axial and orbital
motions that exist only in somebody else's imagination and thank God
not people would do that if they knew.
* http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/pilt_man_RiseAndFall.html
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 05:24:09
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I have shown why the 'sidereal time' justification for the axial and
> orbital motion does not exist
That is... arguable.
> and how the orginal timekeeping
> astronomers transfered the average 24 hour day to terrestrial
> longitudes by exploiting their Equation of Time correction which
> allows humanity to have the equable day and equable hours,minutes and
> seconds
One certainly can average out the difference between a mechanical
clock and a sundial over the course of a year, but for that one needs
a clock that will keep good time over a whole year.
> and allow the correlation where 4 minutes of clock time
> equals 1 degree of geographical seperation spanning the entire globe
> as a 24 hour/360 degree system.
Regardless of the period of the Earth's axial rotation, since the time
of day depends on the relationship between a place on Earth and the
Sun - "midnight" when it faces away, "noon" when it faces towards -
the relationship between the 24 hours and the 360 degrees will indeed
be exact, as they are but two different ways to express an angle.
> "Since that for finding the Longitude, the Time of the day at the
> place where you are must be known (as hath been said above) you must
> have a care to observe that time as precisely as is possible. For
> every minute of time, that you misreckon, makes a 4th part of a degree
> in longitude, which amounts, near the Aequator, to above 15. English
> miles, but less elsewhere. Wherefore to find the time of the day with
> certainty, you are not to trust to the Observation of the Suns
> greatest Altitude, thence to conclude that 'tis just Noon, or that the
> Sun is in the South, unless, being betwixt the Tropicks, you have it
> just in the Zenith. "
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
Nothing in that paragraph is changed by today's view of astronomy.
> Had these people the intelligence to ask me how to untangle the
> conceptual monsters from structural and timekeeping astronomy then
> genuine dynamicists could work productively on the celestial dynamics
> and structure but they do not.
Without 'universal gravitation', productive work is less likely, not
more likely.
> I may have failed to express the insights of the great astronomers in
> a manner they deserve but then again I do not have a monopoly on
> explaining heliocentric astronomy,it just happens that I am the only
> person doing it in a forum full of astrologers and their
> constellational concerns.Judging from the popularity of Dava Sobel's
> Longitude history and how clocks resolved it just shows the appetite
> people have for astronomy even when they are assaulted with exotic
> nonsense or forced to believe that magnification is the only thing an
> astronomer does
The only contradiction between the history of the determination of
longitude in that book, or the achievements of Copernicus and Kepler,
and the current understanding of the heavens which includes Newton and
Flamsteed, is that which is made apparent to you through your own
misunderstandings.
One might, indeed, be able to dispense with bringing in the "fixed
stars" on the basis that they are not needed and that they are not
truly fixed. But that does not change the fact that they are very
nearly fixed, or the fact that the periods of the orbits of the
planets as given by Kepler's law refer to a system of directions from
the Sun that is very nearly the same as the system of directions
defined by the "fixed stars".
And so, when the motions in the solar system are broken down into
individual simple motions, so that the majesty of the heavens may be
built up from components understandable even to the simple, one of
those components is an axial rotation of the Earth with a 23 hour, 56
minute, and 4 second period.
In heliocentric astronomy, the Earth moves around the Sun, and so it
loses one day a year from what it would have if its axial rotation
alone determined the day with no influence from the change in
direction to the Sun. The length of the "sidereal day" or axial
rotation period, therefore, is shorter than 24 hours in order to
provide the extra day that will be lost. As it is a necessary and
inevitable consequence of the Earth going around the Sun, the fact
that Copernicus might have chosen to express matters in a different
way, because he was presenting his findings to a world that thought in
a geocentric manner, rather than the world of today, where it is
natural to think in a heliocentric fashion, does not imply our current
explanations are false; they but express exactly the same phenomena in
a more direct manner.
> How do you continue when the basic astronomical fact which keep clocks
> in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes is not
> understood correctly ?
We do not feel we have that problem. We continue; our numbers add up;
when we look for the planets, they are where we expect to find them.
We would think this would be difficult to achieve if our understanding
was wrong.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 03:51:34
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 7, 4:47 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > I enjoy taking pretensious freaks apart so lets see how you stand up .
>
> > >From your ill-informed website -
>
> > "The Second is now defined, in SI, by the physics of atoms, and no
> > longer by the rotation of the Earth.
> > For the UTC time scale, the addition or subtraction of Leap Seconds
> > accommodates the discrepancy in rate, which in 2001 was about 1 ms per
> > day or 0.01 ppm. The UTC day thereby tracks the averaged rotation of
> > the Earth with respect to the Earth-Sun line.
>
> > A constant rate of Leap Seconds would accommodate a constant averaged
> > Earth rotation time differing from the nominal 86400 SI seconds.
> > Variations in the Leap Second rate accommodate changes in the Earth's
> > averaged rotation rate.
>
> > Long-term, the Earth's mean rotation slows by about 7 ms / year /
> > year, largely because of the drag of sea-tides.
>
> > Leap Seconds occur simultaneously, world-wide, at UTC midnight.
>
> > Leap Seconds were introduced in principle at 1972.0 UTC; the first one
> > was 1972-06-30 23:59:60 UTC"
>
> >http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/leapsecs.htm
>
> > The only 'leaps seconds' that are acceptable in respect to the axial
> > cycle are from the dignified,do you hear this,the dignified Equation
> > of Time system which resets the 24 hour clock cycle to natural
> > noon.
>
> Unfortunately, the SI seconds we use in our electronic devices are the
> wrong length even for the undignified average 24 hour day, and so we
> need "leap seconds" to make up the error with that.
>
It is stress knowing that parents put their children in the path of
people like yourself and the pretensious doctor here,it is distress
knowing that they willingly do so even though they can easily see that
the basic astronomical fact that clocks are kept in sync with the
axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.The closest the timekeeping
astronomers got was exploiting the fact that the Equation of Time
correction that facilitates the progression of each 24 hour cycle
elapses into the next 24 hour cycle could be transfered to a 'constant
' axial cycle as a principle.It is such a lovely concept that only
unfamiliarity or insanity would argue to the contrary.
And this is it,the absolute pandemic insantiy that manages to overide
basic judgement in motion,the ability to believe that the noon cycles
are 24 hours exactly in order to justify the orbital motion of the
Earth through 3 minutes 56 seconds -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
> And his web site was very accurately informed about those leap seconds
> that are in actual current use. Leaping back and forth every year to
> stay with the sundial is not worth the bother, but avoiding a long-
> term cumulative error because our second is the wrong size is needed.
>
> John Savard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have shown why the 'sidereal time' justification for the axial and
orbital motion does not exist and how the orginal timekeeping
astronomers transfered the average 24 hour day to terrestrial
longitudes by exploiting their Equation of Time correction which
allows humanity to have the equable day and equable hours,minutes and
seconds and allow the correlation where 4 minutes of clock time
equals 1 degree of geographical seperation spanning the entire globe
as a 24 hour/360 degree system.
"Since that for finding the Longitude, the Time of the day at the
place where you are must be known (as hath been said above) you must
have a care to observe that time as precisely as is possible. For
every minute of time, that you misreckon, makes a 4th part of a degree
in longitude, which amounts, near the Aequator, to above 15. English
miles, but less elsewhere. Wherefore to find the time of the day with
certainty, you are not to trust to the Observation of the Suns
greatest Altitude, thence to conclude that 'tis just Noon, or that the
Sun is in the South, unless, being betwixt the Tropicks, you have it
just in the Zenith. "
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The Piltdown man episode was a carefully constructed hoax that got out
of hand,the perpetrator even tried his best to call attention to his
prank by showing some intelligence,in this matter,the 'sidereal
time' justification for axial and orbital motion leading to the
conclusion that the Earth's rotation can be isolated at 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds through 360 degrees is'nt even complicated but it
is many degrees of magnitude more destructive than Piltdown man ever
was.
Unlike you,I have seen the slow changes as men start to identify the
relationship between the Equation of Time and the ill-conceived
Newtonian definitional attempts expressed as 'absolute/relative
time',something people knew nothing about before it was brought out
in the open about 6 years ago,I have seen the changes in description
ofthe noon cycle from 24 hours 'exactly' to the 'average' noon cycle
without fundamentally altering the 'sidereal time' conception,in
short,although work is being done quietly it has all the same bumbling
hallmarks that ruined astronomy in the first place -
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/
Had these people the intelligence to ask me how to untangle the
conceptual monsters from structural and timekeeping astronomy then
genuine dynamicists could work productively on the celestial dynamics
and structure but they do not.Even though I have shown what Newtonian
absolute/relative space and motion in terms of the false approach to
and resolution of retrogrades,how long do you think that the original
Copernican /Keplerian method will find its way into reference
books ?.
This world now finds its heroes in physical beauty and physical talent
and all but ignores the people who create genuine masterpieces or
calls attention to the magnificense of terrestrial/celestial
phenomena,all you lot do is call attention to yourselves.The world
should be thanking people like Mr Tezel who brings the great
Copernican insight to life by applying his intelligence as well as his
equipment in showing how our orbital motion against the orbital motion
of the other planets explains so much -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
I may have failed to express the insights of the great astronomers in
a manner they deserve but then again I do not have a monopoly on
explaining heliocentric astronomy,it just happens that I am the only
person doing it in a forum full of astrologers and their
constellational concerns.Judging from the popularity of Dava Sobel's
Longitude history and how clocks resolved it just shows the appetite
people have for astronomy even when they are assaulted with exotic
nonsense or forced to believe that magnification is the only thing an
astronomer does.You see the struggle of people to get to know the
correlation between timekeeping and structural astronomy even though
they are bombarded with false facts like the phony doctor here does
as representative of the big institutions.
How do you continue when the basic astronomical fact which keep clocks
in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes is not
understood correctly ? .That is the first question facing our race
before they proceed with anything productive.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 20:47:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I enjoy taking pretensious freaks apart so lets see how you stand up .
>
> >From your ill-informed website -
>
> "The Second is now defined, in SI, by the physics of atoms, and no
> longer by the rotation of the Earth.
> For the UTC time scale, the addition or subtraction of Leap Seconds
> accommodates the discrepancy in rate, which in 2001 was about 1 ms per
> day or 0.01 ppm. The UTC day thereby tracks the averaged rotation of
> the Earth with respect to the Earth-Sun line.
>
> A constant rate of Leap Seconds would accommodate a constant averaged
> Earth rotation time differing from the nominal 86400 SI seconds.
> Variations in the Leap Second rate accommodate changes in the Earth's
> averaged rotation rate.
>
> Long-term, the Earth's mean rotation slows by about 7 ms / year /
> year, largely because of the drag of sea-tides.
>
> Leap Seconds occur simultaneously, world-wide, at UTC midnight.
>
> Leap Seconds were introduced in principle at 1972.0 UTC; the first one
> was 1972-06-30 23:59:60 UTC"
>
> http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/leapsecs.htm
>
>
> The only 'leaps seconds' that are acceptable in respect to the axial
> cycle are from the dignified,do you hear this,the dignified Equation
> of Time system which resets the 24 hour clock cycle to natural
> noon.
Unfortunately, the SI seconds we use in our electronic devices are the
wrong length even for the undignified average 24 hour day, and so we
need "leap seconds" to make up the error with that.
And his web site was very accurately informed about those leap seconds
that are in actual current use. Leaping back and forth every year to
stay with the sundial is not worth the bother, but avoiding a long-
term cumulative error because our second is the wrong size is needed.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 15:23:35
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 5, 4:59 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 7:59 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> > > What exactly do you wish to teach children ?,that axial rotation
> > > occurs as an average of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and minute
> > > fractions and this is a gauge for the axial and orbital motions of the
> > > Earth -
>
> > Well, what else could I teach children, if I want to teach them the
> > truth?
>
> The truth is that clocks and external references ,such as the return
> of a star to a location,do NOT represent the Earth's axial rotation
> nor orbital motion and I have shown you exactly where that false
> notion emerged -
>
> "... 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
Although there are indeed small irregularities in the Earth's axial
rotation, caused by such things as the wind, which are now detectable,
since the Earth's axial rotation (as opposed to the day itself, which
is affected by the Equation of Time) is, to a very high degree of
approximation, uniform. And, since the direction from the Earth to the
fixed stars is very nearly constant (those stars being much further
away than the distance from the Earth to the Sun) the return of a star
to a location is a thing we can use, and indeed is the most convenient
thing we can use, to measure the Earth's axial rotation directly in
order to *compare* it with the time on a mechanical clock.
It is not reasonable to object to the use of such small approximations
(although one should not forget that they are there) as a basis for
developing an understanding of the Earth's motions. Insisting that all
the complications should always be left in ensures that the subject
stays incomprehensible, and prevents people from learning how the
Earth's motions work.
> > Do I teach them that axial rotation takes an average of 24 hours, but
> > speeds up and slows down in accordance with the Equation of Time?
>
> The Equation of Time is a human devised principle,a wonderful way to
> keep the equable 24 hour cycle fixed to natural noon and allows each
> 24 hour cycle to elapse into the next 24 hour cycle.That is why the
> timekeeping astronomers could transfer the 'average' 24 hour day to
> terrestrial longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation even
> though they had no idea what was causing the inequality in the natural
> noon cycle.
Well, I don't have _that_ problem.
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
> The astronomers at the time did not believe that such an watch could
> be made to match the principles which makes the 24 hour/360 degree
> correlation work but that is it,they understood the axial cycle
> without imposing the idea of 'constant ' axial rotation -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemma_Frisius
Ah. The idea of 'constant' axial rotation is something you believe
should not be imposed.
> So what do you teach children John ?, that adults can't make the
> intricate connection between average 24 hour day and constant axial
> cycle without having to impose an external reference for the
> correlation.
Maybe "can't" is too harsh. But why make it harder than it has to be?
It's not as if one can, or even should, expect people to be willing to
make a large effort to understand things the hard way. The external
reference and constant axial rotation are a straightforwards starting
point.
> Is it your deficiency in not realising the true genius of
> the timekeeping astronomers and that maybe the correlation between
> axial rotation,external references, clocks,terrestrial
> longitudes,heliocentric reasoning and so on is more intricate than
> just trying to justify axial rotation because a star returns to a
> location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds of a 24 hour day based on a
> 1461 day cycle.
If I start from the simple elements, and build up, I can reach the
things that go on such as the Equation of Time. If I start at the
other end, it is too confusing.
> > Do I teach them that the return of a star happens in 23 hours, 56
> > minutes, and 4 seconds, but this is _not_ a gauge for the axial and
> > orbital motions of the Earth?
>
> Then you will be shunned by your peers insofar as Newton used the
> justification to construct his ballistic agenda applied to planetary
> motion -
>
> "Newton is careful to use the sidereal day. This then must also the
> basis of the physicist's definition of time. This is what Newton uses
> to develop his theory of gravitation. Newton considers the motion of
> the earth, about its own axis, relative to the fixed stars. "
> > And you support heliocentric astronomy, not geocentric astronomy. But
> > you reject concerning oneself with the fixed stars as a starting
> > framework, because that is astrology.
>
> The idea that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds,and it is unfortunately the present majority view,
> is in direct conflict with heliocentric reasoning and it is
> astrological in content and character .
Does the Earth *revolve* around the Sun through 360 degrees in one
year? If so, this "present majority view" is not in conflict with
heliocentric reasoning, it is a direct consequence of heliocentric
reasoning.
> You make up what story you need to reach whatever conclusion you
> desire for ultimately that was the result of the 'universal theory of
> gravitation', a way to have mathematicians hijack the machinary of
> astronomy and reduce it to ashes.
Well, the universal theory of gravitation isn't going anywhere anytime
soon. If that's what you're objecting to, you won't be able to
convince very many people.
> > The inner planets, having shorter orbital periods, move more quickly,
> > leading to them overtaking outer planets and causing them to appear to
> > move in a retrogade fashion from their viewpoint. An outer planet sees
> > an inner planet moving in a retrogade fashion to it when it is on the
> > other side of the Sun from it. As these things are what you admit
> > causes retrogades, why is it so strange to also say that the situation
> > results from motion around a common center that is in only one
> > direction - around that center?
>
> Retrogrades represent the apparent motions of the planets against the
> stellar background and are resolved by an orbitally moving Earth
> between Mars and Venus,you actually can see it directly using time
> lapse footage.I would teach this to children as an astronomer insofar
> as it is the only way it can be taught.
>
> It is of course big news.After being subjected to an assault about
> things being 'relative' genuine astronomers ,indeed most people, can
> now see where Newton jumped the tracks and created absolute/relative
> space out of a silly way to approach and resolve retrograde motion.Any
> teacher would be proud to be among the first to show the time lapse
> footage of the Earth overtaking Saturn and Jupiter while drawing on
> the analogy of a traffic island and a faster car in an inner lane
> overtaking slower cars in outer lanes as a way of showing how we see
> the orbital motion of the other planets from Earth.
Here, again, you seem to be making a distinction without a difference.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 04:42:17
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 5, 8:19 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <1188996082.729292.92...@y42g2000hsy.google
> groups.com>, Wed, 5 Sep 2007 05:41:22, tony_fland...@yahoo.com posted:
>
> >On Sep 4, 2:58 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>
> >> Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made
> >> back around 1996 ... to devise
> >> a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get
> >> yet closer to the tropical year.
>
> >For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church has adopted a calendar which
> >is nearly perfect. It agrees with the Gregorian calendar up to 2800,
> >which is a leap year for the Orthodox but not for the Gregorian. It's
> >based on a cycle where 7 out of every 9 century years are leap years,
> >as opposed to 3 out of 4 for the Gregorian.
>
> What you write cannot be what you mean.
>
> Orthodox divide the year by 900, and don't Leap if the remainder is not
> 200 or 600.
>
> --
> (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
> Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
> PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
> Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
I enjoy taking pretensious freaks apart so lets see how you stand up .
>From your ill-informed website -
"The Second is now defined, in SI, by the physics of atoms, and no
longer by the rotation of the Earth.
For the UTC time scale, the addition or subtraction of Leap Seconds
accommodates the discrepancy in rate, which in 2001 was about 1 ms per
day or 0.01 ppm. The UTC day thereby tracks the averaged rotation of
the Earth with respect to the Earth-Sun line.
A constant rate of Leap Seconds would accommodate a constant averaged
Earth rotation time differing from the nominal 86400 SI seconds.
Variations in the Leap Second rate accommodate changes in the Earth's
averaged rotation rate.
Long-term, the Earth's mean rotation slows by about 7 ms / year /
year, largely because of the drag of sea-tides.
Leap Seconds occur simultaneously, world-wide, at UTC midnight.
Leap Seconds were introduced in principle at 1972.0 UTC; the first one
was 1972-06-30 23:59:60 UTC"
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/leapsecs.htm
The only 'leaps seconds' that are acceptable in respect to the axial
cycle are from the dignified,do you hear this,the dignified Equation
of Time system which resets the 24 hour clock cycle to natural
noon.The closest our ancestors get to linking clocks directly to axial
rotation is to determine that the average 24 hour day can be
transfered to a 'constant' axial cycle as a principle thereby maintain
the existing correlation between clock time and geographical
seperation 4 minutes = 1 degree ,15 degrees = 1 hour and 24 hours/360
degrees.
The only acceptable application of 'leap seconds' applied to the axial
cycle is the astronomical jewel known as the Equation of Time and
thank God,dull people like you cannot grasp it -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The neccessary modification of astronomical principles to suit
climatological purposes cannot wait for pretensious numbskulls who
cannot grasp the basic astronomical principles that the old
astronomers took for granted,people like Huygens,Harrison and anyone
who appreciated the diiference between natural noon ,24 hour clock
noon and terrestrial longitudes.
Surely there are a few participants who can go beyond constellational
observing thread and recognise just how important this matter actually
is.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 20:19:49
From: Dr J R Stockton
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
In sci.astro.amateur message <1188996082.729292.92290@y42g2000hsy.google
groups.com >, Wed, 5 Sep 2007 05:41:22, tony_flanders@yahoo.com posted:
>On Sep 4, 2:58 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>
>> Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made
>> back around 1996 ... to devise
>> a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get
>> yet closer to the tropical year.
>
>For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church has adopted a calendar which
>is nearly perfect. It agrees with the Gregorian calendar up to 2800,
>which is a leap year for the Orthodox but not for the Gregorian. It's
>based on a cycle where 7 out of every 9 century years are leap years,
>as opposed to 3 out of 4 for the Gregorian.
What you write cannot be what you mean.
Orthodox divide the year by 900, and don't Leap if the remainder is not
200 or 600.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ > - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ > - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 20:20:56
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
Dr J R Stockton <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk > wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <1188996082.729292.92290@y42g2000hsy.google
> groups.com>, Wed, 5 Sep 2007 05:41:22, tony_flanders@yahoo.com posted:
>>On Sep 4, 2:58 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made
>>> back around 1996 ... to devise
>>> a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get
>>> yet closer to the tropical year.
>>
>>For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church has adopted a calendar which
>>is nearly perfect. It agrees with the Gregorian calendar up to 2800,
>>which is a leap year for the Orthodox but not for the Gregorian. It's
>>based on a cycle where 7 out of every 9 century years are leap years,
>>as opposed to 3 out of 4 for the Gregorian.
>
> What you write cannot be what you mean.
>
> Orthodox divide the year by 900, and don't Leap if the remainder is not
> 200 or 600.
Hi, there, everyone.
What I suspect happened here was a slip of the keyboard: Tony, did you
mean to say, "where 7 out of 9 century years are _not_ leap years, as
opposed to 3 out of 4 for the Gregorian"? That would fit the Gregorian
rule (no century leap year unless the year is evenly divisible
by 400) and also the Orthodox algorithm.
Similarly, another rule mentioned in this thread would follow the
Julian calendar except that evidently a year divisible by 128 would
not be a leap year -- so that we leave out 8 years every "binary
millennium" (1024 or 1K years for computer programmers <grin >).
In other words, 1 year out of 128 left out, rather than 1 in 133-1/3
(Gregorian) or 1 in 128-4/7 (Orthodox).
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:41:49
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2:58 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>
> > Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made
> > back around 1996 ... to devise
> > a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get
> > yet closer to the tropical year.
>
> For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church has adopted a calendar which
> is nearly perfect. It agrees with the Gregorian calendar up to 2800,
> which is a leap year for the Orthodox but not for the Gregorian. It's
> based on a cycle where 7 out of every 9 century years are leap years,
> as opposed to 3 out of 4 for the Gregorian.
>
> - Tony Flanders
I looked at what that unfortunate lady wrote and wondered what my
astronomical ancestors did to deserve having their works destroyed and
your reply is not much better.The annual orbital cycle calculated as
365 days 5 hours 49 minutes drifts back through the celestial sphere
reference of the civl calendar,they knew this way back before the
Gregorian calendar reform -
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/sacrocalen.html
It is quite a shock to come across people speaking of the intricate
calendrical reform based on the calculation of the annual cycle using
equable 24 hour days (thereby giving the fraction of 365 days 5 hours
49 minutes) while not recognising how the 24 hour cycle is extracted
from the noon cycle.The resetting 'leap day' correction keeps the
celestial sphere based calendrical cycle in sync with the annual
orbital cycle which in turn is based on the understanding of equable
hours minutes and seconds.
It is never an occasion to require people to understand the ins and
outs of structural and timekeeping astronomers in this matter for I
would truly wish that modern imaging of the Earth from space or time
lapse footage takes care of most of their earthtbound observations
and their affirmations of solar system structure and motion through
geometric arguments.
Right now there are reckless people at the helm of a very important
discipline,the very names of the astronomers involved in calendar
reform along with civil and religious authorities expresses how
important these things actually are.Today there are people running
wild with a blizzard of time definitions based on the emergence of a
fictional difference between 'slor time' and '.sidereal time'.What the
astronomical,civil and religious people of the Gregorian era would
have thought of this dismal generation I do not know but intelligent
does not crop up in the description.
A few months ago ,after showing the forum the treatise of Huygens , I
thought you and your colleagues were in trouble,presently I can assure
you that now the trouble is all mine.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 05:41:22
From:
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 4, 2:58 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
> Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made
> back around 1996 ... to devise
> a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get
> yet closer to the tropical year.
For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church has adopted a calendar which
is nearly perfect. It agrees with the Gregorian calendar up to 2800,
which is a leap year for the Orthodox but not for the Gregorian. It's
based on a cycle where 7 out of every 9 century years are leap years,
as opposed to 3 out of 4 for the Gregorian.
- Tony Flanders
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 03:59:53
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 4, 7:59 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > What exactly do you wish to teach children ?,that axial rotation
> > occurs as an average of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and minute
> > fractions and this is a gauge for the axial and orbital motions of the
> > Earth -
>
> Well, what else could I teach children, if I want to teach them the
> truth?
>
The truth is that clocks and external references ,such as the return
of a star to a location,do NOT represent the Earth's axial rotation
nor orbital motion and I have shown you exactly where that false
notion emerged -
"... 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
The closest thing timekeeping astronomers got was treating the axial
cycle as 'constant' by transfering the human devised equable 24 hour
day to terrestrial longitudes where 4 minutes equals 1 degree of
seperation,it still remains that way.
> Do I teach them that axial rotation takes 24 hours exactly?
>
You most certainly do,the fictional difference between the 24 hour day
and the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second day is promoted in terms of axial
and orbital motion -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
The natural noon cycles as opposed to the human devised 24 hour noon
cycle are unequal in length and for a crowd who are always on about
observational evidence,there is not a shread of observational evidence
that the noon cycle is 24 hours.So what do you teach children ?
> Do I teach them that axial rotation takes an average of 24 hours, but
> speeds up and slows down in accordance with the Equation of Time?
>
The Equation of Time is a human devised principle,a wonderful way to
keep the equable 24 hour cycle fixed to natural noon and allows each
24 hour cycle to elapse into the next 24 hour cycle.That is why the
timekeeping astronomers could transfer the 'average' 24 hour day to
terrestrial longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation even
though they had no idea what was causing the inequality in the natural
noon cycle.
The astronomers at the time did not believe that such an watch could
be made to match the principles which makes the 24 hour/360 degree
correlation work but that is it,they understood the axial cycle
without imposing the idea of 'constant ' axial rotation -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemma_Frisius
So what do you teach children John ?, that adults can't make the
intricate connection between average 24 hour day and constant axial
cycle without having to impose an external reference for the
correlation.Is it your deficiency in not realising the true genius of
the timekeeping astronomers and that maybe the correlation between
axial rotation,external references, clocks,terrestrial
longitudes,heliocentric reasoning and so on is more intricate than
just trying to justify axial rotation because a star returns to a
location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds of a 24 hour day based on a
1461 day cycle.
> Do I teach them that the return of a star happens in 23 hours, 56
> minutes, and 4 seconds, but this is _not_ a gauge for the axial and
> orbital motions of the Earth?
>
Then you will be shunned by your peers insofar as Newton used the
justification to construct his ballistic agenda applied to planetary
motion -
"Newton is careful to use the sidereal day. This then must also the
basis of the physicist's definition of time. This is what Newton uses
to develop his theory of gravitation. Newton considers the motion of
the earth, about its own axis, relative to the fixed stars. "
http://www.youth.net/eratosthenes/030923/att-0000/01-Newton3.doc
> I think that last one is what you say is the truth.
>
> The Equation of Time is a real phenomenon.
>
> And you support heliocentric astronomy, not geocentric astronomy. But
> you reject concerning oneself with the fixed stars as a starting
> framework, because that is astrology.
>
The idea that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds,and it is unfortunately the present majority view,
is in direct conflict with heliocentric reasoning and it is
astrological in content and character .
> And you note that Kepler's third law, which has the orbital period of
> a planet equal to the 3/2 power of its distance from the Sun is true.
>
You have still to verify basic astronomical tenets like Copernican
orbital comparisons before you even venture into arguments based on
transfering annual orbital times into distances of the planets from
the Sun -
But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two
planets is precisely the ratio of the 3/2th power of the mean
distances, i.e., of the spheres themselves; provided, however, that
the arithmetic mean between both diameters of the elliptic orbit be
slightly less than the longer diameter. And so if any one take the
period, say, of the Earth, which is one year, and the period of
Saturn, which is thirty years, and extract the cube roots of this
ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring the cube roots, he
will have as his numerical products the most just ratio of the
distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the cube root of
1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of 30 is greater
than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than 9. And Saturn,
at its mean distance from the sun, is slightly higher than nine times
the mean distance of the Earth from the sun."
Kepler
The joy in discovering how Kepler reasoned out planetary distances is
tempered by a contrived mess based ona ridiculous geocentric/
heliocentric orbital equivalency -
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton
> You will note that heliocentric astronomy, with Kepler's third law,
> leads to the planets going around the Sun in ellipses, always moving
> counter-clockwise around the Sun. And the stationary state according
> to which these periods are evaluated happens to lead to the stars
> appearing not to move very quickly, if to any extent noticeable, in
> the time of Copernicus and Newton. How is it then improper to give
> this state of rest a simple name, based on something concrete - the
> stars - instead of a calculated dynamical entity that comes from
> within Keplerian theory?
>
You make up what story you need to reach whatever conclusion you
desire for ultimately that was the result of the 'universal theory of
gravitation', a way to have mathematicians hijack the machinary of
astronomy and reduce it to ashes.
> The inner planets, having shorter orbital periods, move more quickly,
> leading to them overtaking outer planets and causing them to appear to
> move in a retrogade fashion from their viewpoint. An outer planet sees
> an inner planet moving in a retrogade fashion to it when it is on the
> other side of the Sun from it. As these things are what you admit
> causes retrogades, why is it so strange to also say that the situation
> results from motion around a common center that is in only one
> direction - around that center?
>
> John Savard
Retrogrades represent the apparent motions of the planets against the
stellar background and are resolved by an orbitally moving Earth
between Mars and Venus,you actually can see it directly using time
lapse footage.I would teach this to children as an astronomer insofar
as it is the only way it can be taught.
It is of course big news.After being subjected to an assault about
things being 'relative' genuine astronomers ,indeed most people, can
now see where Newton jumped the tracks and created absolute/relative
space out of a silly way to approach and resolve retrograde motion.Any
teacher would be proud to be among the first to show the time lapse
footage of the Earth overtaking Saturn and Jupiter while drawing on
the analogy of a traffic island and a faster car in an inner lane
overtaking slower cars in outer lanes as a way of showing how we see
the orbital motion of the other planets from Earth.
Don't worry,there are genuine many complex issues with climatology
and geology to keep dynamicists occupied,replacing pretensiousness
based on wordplays and fictional forces with actual productive work in
meshing astronomical and terrestrial disciplines.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 23:43:17
From: Dr J R Stockton
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
In sci.astro.amateur message <46dd020c$0$34275$d368eab@news.calweb.com >,
Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:58:20, Margo Schulter <mschulter@web1.calweb.com >
posted:
>Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made back around 1996, when I was
>looking into the Gregorian calendar and also the Galileo trial, to devise
>a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get yet closer to the tropical
>year.
Keep the Julian Rule, omit the two Gregorian Rules, and add a Leap Day
in every year divisible by 128.
Then require the IERS to stabilise the Earth's rotation accordingly.
--
(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: 04 Sep 2007 11:59:53
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
oriel36 wrote:
> What exactly do you wish to teach children ?,that axial rotation
> occurs as an average of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and minute
> fractions and this is a gauge for the axial and orbital motions of the
> Earth -
Well, what else could I teach children, if I want to teach them the
truth?
Do I teach them that axial rotation takes 24 hours exactly?
Do I teach them that axial rotation takes an average of 24 hours, but
speeds up and slows down in accordance with the Equation of Time?
Do I teach them that the return of a star happens in 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds, but this is _not_ a gauge for the axial and
orbital motions of the Earth?
I think that last one is what you say is the truth.
The Equation of Time is a real phenomenon.
And you support heliocentric astronomy, not geocentric astronomy. But
you reject concerning oneself with the fixed stars as a starting
framework, because that is astrology.
And you note that Kepler's third law, which has the orbital period of
a planet equal to the 3/2 power of its distance from the Sun is true.
You will note that heliocentric astronomy, with Kepler's third law,
leads to the planets going around the Sun in ellipses, always moving
counter-clockwise around the Sun. And the stationary state according
to which these periods are evaluated happens to lead to the stars
appearing not to move very quickly, if to any extent noticeable, in
the time of Copernicus and Newton. How is it then improper to give
this state of rest a simple name, based on something concrete - the
stars - instead of a calculated dynamical entity that comes from
within Keplerian theory?
The inner planets, having shorter orbital periods, move more quickly,
leading to them overtaking outer planets and causing them to appear to
move in a retrogade fashion from their viewpoint. An outer planet sees
an inner planet moving in a retrogade fashion to it when it is on the
other side of the Sun from it. As these things are what you admit
causes retrogades, why is it so strange to also say that the situation
results from motion around a common center that is in only one
direction - around that center?
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 05:59:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 4, 1:20 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The Equation of Time represents the only time leap seconds apply to
> > the axial cycle and then only as a principle to keep clocks in sync
> > with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.You probably heard
> > something about this vaguely through Dava Sobel's book on Longitude -
>
> Rather than have leap seconds due to the Equation of Time, we are
> content to let our clocks on an annual basis go up to 15 minutes out
> of sync with the sundial.
>
There is now little point in openly lamenting the total carelessness
with which this most important subject is being treated and especially
with the treatise of Huygens before you all showing how clocks are
kept in sync with the axial cycle and from there to the existing
correlation between 4 minutes of clock time and 1 degree of
geographical seperation -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
Maybe people take the 24 hour day so much for granted that they no
longer know nor care how Monday keeps elasping into Tuesday and so on
but it is not taught in schools nor is it promoted in astronomical
circles even though there is nothing difficult is seeing how the human
devised 24 hour cycle is kept pinned to the natural noon cycle via the
daily 'leap' correction commonly known as the Equation of Time.
Do any of you feel proud of the fiction which creates a difference
between a 24 hour day and a 23 hours 56 minute 04 second day just to
satisfy a late 17th century agenda which ultimately views retrogrades
and resolves them in an incorrect manner,a manner which is contrary to
the commentaries of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo ?.
> But we chose to base the length of the second on an average measure of
> the 24 hour cycle over a period of years that ranged from 1750 to
> 1892, by comparing the solar cycle to the movements of the planets.
> This was the basis, from the researches of Simon Newcomb, which led to
> the scale of Ephemeris Time.
>
> The tides require the expenditure of energy to lift up all that water
> periodically. And so they lead to both the revolution of the Moon
> around the Earth, and to the rotation of the Earth, slowing down -
> because the Moon and the Earth are physical bodies, following the same
> laws of motion as seen upon Earth.
>
> So the day now is very slightly longer, adding up to about one second
> a year, than it was about 180 years ago. But we must keep the length
> of the second fixed, or we would lose the standard for the sizes of
> our coils, resistors, and capacitors, among other things. There is no
> pretentiousness in this; our measurements of things are genuinely able
> to be this precise.
>
> John Savard
Most people will enjoy the great system our timekeeping ancestors put
in place where the 86 400 seconds of Monday will turn into the 86 400
seconds of Tuesday,they will even enjoy the complimentary calendrical
system with its added 86 400 day leap correction which keeps the
impression of a linear progression of years using a 1461 day cycle by
resetting the celestial sphere cycle back to the annual cycle
calculated as 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.
The word 'heartbreaking' is not normally associated with astronomy but
to see the devastation visited on the timekeeping and structural
astronomers by less careful people can be just that and I do mean
heartbreaking.The flexibility which the 24 hour system allows in
regards to setting geographical time zones ,daylight savings
time ,determining the completeion of an annual orbit as fractions of
the 24 hour day and all civil purposes should not detract from the
core principle which links natural noon with 24 hour clock noon.It is
never the axial rotation of the Earth,it is the transfer of the
average 24 hour day to the axial cycle as though it were 'constant'
that remains one of the greatest and most misunderstood astronomical
principles known.
What exactly do you wish to teach children ?,that axial rotation
occurs as an average of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and minute
fractions and this is a gauge for the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
As an aside,there is a nuisance who borrows the e-mail addresses of
people and sends messages to other groups in some self-serving quest
with no real purpose behind it ,the same principle Newton adopted when
he took genuine astronomical insights and stiched them together in an
idiosyncratic way for his own purposes.If anyone here feels disgust
that a person can wreck havoc with a newsgroup or with the once noble
discipline of timekeeping and structural astronomy then you may get an
inkling of what I feel.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 05:20:20
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The Equation of Time represents the only time leap seconds apply to
> the axial cycle and then only as a principle to keep clocks in sync
> with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.You probably heard
> something about this vaguely through Dava Sobel's book on Longitude -
Rather than have leap seconds due to the Equation of Time, we are
content to let our clocks on an annual basis go up to 15 minutes out
of sync with the sundial.
But we chose to base the length of the second on an average measure of
the 24 hour cycle over a period of years that ranged from 1750 to
1892, by comparing the solar cycle to the movements of the planets.
This was the basis, from the researches of Simon Newcomb, which led to
the scale of Ephemeris Time.
The tides require the expenditure of energy to lift up all that water
periodically. And so they lead to both the revolution of the Moon
around the Earth, and to the rotation of the Earth, slowing down -
because the Moon and the Earth are physical bodies, following the same
laws of motion as seen upon Earth.
So the day now is very slightly longer, adding up to about one second
a year, than it was about 180 years ago. But we must keep the length
of the second fixed, or we would lose the standard for the sizes of
our coils, resistors, and capacitors, among other things. There is no
pretentiousness in this; our measurements of things are genuinely able
to be this precise.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 03:32:26
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
On Sep 4, 7:58 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
> John Savard <jsav...@excxn.anospamb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
> > As you know, every four years, we have to add a day to the year to keep
> > it in step with the seasons.
>
> > Except for three years out of every 400, and even the Gregorian calendar
> > is an approximation to the tropical year.
>
> Hi, John.
>
> Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made back around 1996, when I was
> looking into the Gregorian calendar and also the Galileo trial, to devise
> a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get yet closer to the tropical
> year. I wound up doing something with years divisible by 4,000, 10,000, or
> 20,000, and it would have been accurate to a day every 800,000 years or so,
> except that the tropical of year of 1900 (maybe the 365 days, 5 hours,
> 48 minutes, and 46 seconds which I had learned from an astronomy book
> as a child) is in fact a moving target, with leap seconds already required
> to adjust for the earth's inconstant rotation.
>
The Equation of Time represents the only time leap seconds apply to
the axial cycle and then only as a principle to keep clocks in sync
with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.You probably heard
something about this vaguely through Dava Sobel's book on Longitude -
http://www.sailtexas.com/long.html
What you learned as a child is incorrect and it is time people made
the effort to understand why this pretensious business of axial
rotation and leap seconds is a product of careless or dull minds.
If you cannot learn from Huygens then take up birdwatching or some
other pursuit that is less harmful to timekeeping and structural
astronomy -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The difference between you and Greg Crinklaw is that he possibly
knows the difference between the correct principles and the incorrect
'sidereal time' ones but like all astrologers is just too selfish in
limiting 'astronomy' to magnification allied with the zodiacal
framework.
> It was fairly humorous -- just about the "perfect" algorithm, if only the
> planet would be more constant in its rotation <grin>.
>
> Most appreciatively,
>
> Margo Schulter
> mschul...@calweb.com
> Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 06:58:20
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Truly Offensive Bad Astronomy
|
John Savard <jsavard@excxn.anospamb.cdn.invalid > wrote:
> As you know, every four years, we have to add a day to the year to keep
> it in step with the seasons.
>
> Except for three years out of every 400, and even the Gregorian calendar
> is an approximation to the tropical year.
Hi, John.
Your remarks remind me of an attempt I made back around 1996, when I was
looking into the Gregorian calendar and also the Galileo trial, to devise
a refinement of the Gregorian algorithm to get yet closer to the tropical
year. I wound up doing something with years divisible by 4,000, 10,000, or
20,000, and it would have been accurate to a day every 800,000 years or so,
except that the tropical of year of 1900 (maybe the 365 days, 5 hours,
48 minutes, and 46 seconds which I had learned from an astronomy book
as a child) is in fact a moving target, with leap seconds already required
to adjust for the earth's inconstant rotation.
It was fairly humorous -- just about the "perfect" algorithm, if only the
planet would be more constant in its rotation <grin >.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
|
