| |
Main
Date: 08 Dec 2006 05:02:46
From: oriel36
Subject: The great Western adaption
|
Our timekeeping ancestors devised a system whereby they created an
equable day and then applied it to the annual cycle,from there they
devised the calendar system which enables one year to follow the next
year with the effect that the convenience breaks clear of the
astronomical cycles and allows humanity to gauge a linear progression
of years.The convenience is based on a 1461 day cycle with 3 years of
365 days and 1 year of 366 days with minor differences.The antiquity of
the system can be gauged by the Gregorian correction which returns the
calendrical convenience to its celestial sphere marker -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform
Apart from the calendar,the seperate system which correlates clocks
with axial rotation at a rate of precisely 4 minutes for each degree
of terrestrial rotation needs a thorough and accurate explanation,if
only for the appreciation of the exquisite and intricate two step
process which makes it possible.
The Total length of the day as observed for each complete cycle
determined by noon is known to be different since antiquity .By
whatever means they collected the data ,they equalised the variations
in these cycles to an equable 24 hour cycle by applying a correction
each noon using addition or subtraction of minutes and seconds to
generate the 24 hour average.It also allows one 24 hour day to elapse
seamlessly into the next 24 hour day and it was this vital piece of
information which was exploited by the heliocentric astronomers who
existed after 1543.
As Copernicus split the Earth's motions into axial and orbital
motions,the explanation of axial rotation to account for the daily
cycle became the basis for geometrically overlaying the longitude
system by dividing the geographical surface into 1 degree seperations
making 360 degrees in total.
The pre-existing Equation of Time system which generates the equable 24
hour day was then overlayed on the longitude divisions where 4 minutes
clock time correlate to 1 degree of rotation making 24 hours/360
degrees in total.
After,or probably equal to,the Copernican resolution for
retrogrades,the heliocentric adaption of the equable day to axial
rotation is the most exquisite and enjoyable achievements of
humanity.Claiming nothing other than the sheer joy in seeing how the
correlation between clocks and axial rotation emerged as a two step
process,a more capable person can explain how it was done even in the
hostile enviroment which proposes an alternative value based on the
return of a star to a location.
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 06:01:57
From:
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
oriel36 wrote:
> a more capable person can explain how it was done even in the
> hostile enviroment which proposes an alternative value based on the
> return of a star to a location.
We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
for planting crops with.
OK, so maybe the Muslims don't agree. But nearly every other culture
does - even those that use lunar calendars, and thus have a little
tolerance for things bouncing around, use the Metonic cycle. (And think
of the "joints and breaths" in the Chinese system.)
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 15:13:02
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
In article <1165586517.322433.325160@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
>oriel36 wrote:
>> a more capable person can explain how it was done even in the
>> hostile enviroment which proposes an alternative value based on the
>> return of a star to a location.
>
>We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
>year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
>for planting crops with.
>
>OK, so maybe the Muslims don't agree. But nearly every other culture
>does - even those that use lunar calendars, and thus have a little
>tolerance for things bouncing around, use the Metonic cycle. (And think
>of the "joints and breaths" in the Chinese system.)
>
>John Savard
The Muslims don't base their calendar on the sidereal year..... :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 18:37:52
From:
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> quoting me:
> >We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> >year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> >for planting crops with.
> The Muslims don't base their calendar on the sidereal year..... :-)
No, they don't. But they don't (seem to) agree that calendars are for
planting crops with - they base theirs on something other than the
tropical year.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:27:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
Mij Adyaw wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165611365.569778.122520@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
>
> Merry Christmas to you Mr Oriel36. Can you tell us if the Christmas star was
> a planetary conjunction? Do you have any insight?
>
> Thanks,
>
> mij
The only conjunction you should care about is the one of 1504 where the
faster Mars overtook the slower Jupiter and the even slower Saturn,fell
behind the two outer planets and then overtook them again,Copernicus
realised that from a faster orbitally moving Earth the observations
could be explained as a common motion around a stationary central Sun -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Those are actual images of Jupiter and Saturn and that is the faster
Earth overtaking them,and this alone affirms that we see orbital
motions around the Sun from a moving Earth.
Your diseased minds cannot even grasp a simple astronomical concept
like the one above so forget about a Merry Christmas,you spend you
time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 08:30:32
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
Mr Oriel,
Thanks for the response, however you did not answer the original question
that I posed to you. I want to understand the Christmas Star that was
present at the time that Jesus was born. Do you believe that the Christmas
Star was a planetary conjunction?
Thanks and Merry Christmas to you.
-mij
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165613221.706561.78950@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165611365.569778.122520@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> >> oriel36 wrote:
>>
>> Merry Christmas to you Mr Oriel36. Can you tell us if the Christmas star
>> was
>> a planetary conjunction? Do you have any insight?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> mij
>
> The only conjunction you should care about is the one of 1504 where the
> faster Mars overtook the slower Jupiter and the even slower Saturn,fell
> behind the two outer planets and then overtook them again,Copernicus
> realised that from a faster orbitally moving Earth the observations
> could be explained as a common motion around a stationary central Sun -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> Those are actual images of Jupiter and Saturn and that is the faster
> Earth overtaking them,and this alone affirms that we see orbital
> motions around the Sun from a moving Earth.
>
> Your diseased minds cannot even grasp a simple astronomical concept
> like the one above so forget about a Merry Christmas,you spend you
> time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:13:43
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
Your kind gloats that you can put these astrophotographers in their
place even take a planet off them at will without the slightest
objection.
You feed them mass,acceleration,force and tell them that looking out on
the magnificense of the Universe that space is 'curved'.
You see Paul,it was a mistake made by a cataloguer ( Flamsteed) in
thinking that you could justify axial rotation using the return of a
star to a location,in other words,the joke is most definitely on the
theorists following Newton who built concepts on celestial sphere
geometry.
Errors in astronomy are fine and especially Flamsteed's error because
they are ultimately resolved by taking into account physical
considerations involved in drawing conclusions.The way the early
astronomers overlaid the Equation of Time principle on axial rotation
is probably the greatest adaption ever to take place to the timekeeping
system insofar as it never requires an external justification for axial
rotation.It was just a leftover consequence of isolating orbitl motion
to explain these motions -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Having nothing to offer humanity by way of promoting the exquisite
thinking of astronomers and having spent humanity on the exotic and
counter-productive novelties of celestial sphere concepts ,you really
have nothing to say.
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <1165586517.322433.325160@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >oriel36 wrote:
> >> a more capable person can explain how it was done even in the
> >> hostile enviroment which proposes an alternative value based on the
> >> return of a star to a location.
> >
> >We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> >year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> >for planting crops with.
> >
> >OK, so maybe the Muslims don't agree. But nearly every other culture
> >does - even those that use lunar calendars, and thus have a little
> >tolerance for things bouncing around, use the Metonic cycle. (And think
> >of the "joints and breaths" in the Chinese system.)
> >
> >John Savard
>
> The Muslims don't base their calendar on the sidereal year..... :-)
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:56:05
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > a more capable person can explain how it was done even in the
> > hostile enviroment which proposes an alternative value based on the
> > return of a star to a location.
>
> We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> for planting crops with.
>
> OK, so maybe the Muslims don't agree. But nearly every other culture
> does - even those that use lunar calendars, and thus have a little
> tolerance for things bouncing around, use the Metonic cycle. (And think
> of the "joints and breaths" in the Chinese system.)
What you do is justify the return of a star to a location each day
using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth and correlate clocks
with this awful contrivance.
A real astronomer could gauge how the Equation of Time principles which
create the equable 24 hour day is overalid on terrestrial geometry as
a principle that axial rotation correlate with the pace of a clock hand
at precisely 4 minutes of clock time for 1 degree of rotation.
>
> John Savard
It is fine,out of incapacity,not to take the information seriously
however the exquisite information contained in both the pre-Copernican
Equation of Time principles and its heliocentric adaption to axial
rotation at 4 minutes for each degree making 24 hours through 360
degrees makes you look extremely ignorant.
Not one single person thinks it necessary to support the original
astronomical foundations of timekeeping or its exquisite and pragmatic
adaption by the heliocentric astronomers and that is the real
shame.With nothing to lose and everything to gain you still stick with
celestial sphere geometry and pretend you are astronomers.Here is what
you ultimately believe -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
Not a single individual appears to have the wits to give that extra bit
of effort to grasp how the Equation of Time creates not just the 24
hour day but also how each of these days elapse seamlessly into the
next thereby making it easy to overlay on the daily cycle based on
axial rotation without requiring an external reference.
Are things so bad,so ignorant or so rude that each and every one of you
would stick with a horrible 17th century contrivance with no sense or
meaning exacept as an observational convenience.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:13:10
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165611365.569778.122520@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
Merry Christmas to you Mr Oriel36. Can you tell us if the Christmas star was
a planetary conjunction? Do you have any insight?
Thanks,
mij
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 09:35:49
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > you spend you
> > time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> > of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> > concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
>
> Why do you think that?
>
> Do you think that orthodox astronomy somehow denies that we live in a
> Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun?
>
> Of course, once we use gravity to calculate the three-dimensional
> positions of all the planets, then we calculate their positions from an
> Earth viewpoint to figure out where to point our telescopes. That's
> because our telescopes rest on the surface of the Earth.
>
> Or is using "gravity to calculate the three-dimensional positions of
> all the planets" supposed to be our mistake? You have posted things
> about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow
> having taken a wrong turn.
>
> Since Kepler's laws derive - perfectly, without any mismatch - from the
> laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the
> inverse-square law of gravity - your objections seem to be bizarre.
>
I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
correct
It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
Even when it is now entirely productive to mesh astronomy with
climatology and geology while keeping their identities intact,you
remain stuck with 17th century conception based on 17th century data
and that is quite something.Again,are the images of the Earth from
space or the time lapse footage not magnificent enough to demonstrate
where productive astronomical working principles turned to wretched
Newtonian nonsense .
As there is nothing difficult with basic astronomical tenets,is there
some perverse satisfaction in sticking with something that is incorrect
and only because you can do so without objection ?. -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
orbital motion ?I am at a loss as to why even the most indifferent
observer would choose to believe not just a counter-productive
principle but to completely ignore the exquisite adaption that took
place at the beginning of heliocentric astronomy.
Look and see the references from Nasa,Encarta and Britannica all
supporting that awful view of the correlation between clocks and
terrestrial motion/geometry,it must seem like a small thing that being
wrong by 3 minutes 56 seconds has little effect on things but I assure
you the information loss kills astronomy stone dead or at least buries
it under centuries of garbage.
You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
PH=C6NOMENON IV.
"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
No point in asking you what he means by 'periodic times' because if you
knew the original Keplerian reasoning you would not adhere to that
rubbish above.
> Maybe you _are_ inviting us to look at celestial mechanics from a
> valuable new perspective that would make it easier to understand, but,
> I'm sorry, I have to tell you the truth: right now, all you are
> managing to do is annoy and confuse people.
>=20
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 08:41:16
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > you spend you
> > time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> > of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> > concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
>
> Why do you think that?
>
> Do you think that orthodox astronomy somehow denies that we live in a
> Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun?
>
> Of course, once we use gravity to calculate the three-dimensional
> positions of all the planets, then we calculate their positions from an
> Earth viewpoint to figure out where to point our telescopes. That's
> because our telescopes rest on the surface of the Earth.
>
> Or is using "gravity to calculate the three-dimensional positions of
> all the planets" supposed to be our mistake? You have posted things
> about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow
> having taken a wrong turn.
>
> Since Kepler's laws derive - perfectly, without any mismatch - from the
> laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the
> inverse-square law of gravity - your objections seem to be bizarre.
>
> Maybe you _are_ inviting us to look at celestial mechanics from a
> valuable new perspective that would make it easier to understand, but,
> I'm sorry, I have to tell you the truth: right now, all you are
> managing to do is annoy and confuse people.
>
> John Savard
Let me see how you are justifying the return of a star to a location in
23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the motions of the Earth and I
will show you exactly where Newton jumped the tracks.
As for pretensious 17th century "Universal Law Of Gravitation' it
amounts to forcing the Earth's motions into the calendar system via
terrestrial ballistics,it is not just wrong ,it is completely
counter-productive for 21st century needs.
You must be delighted that most here would not stand a chance to find
their way to the correct astronomical view of things even with the
availibility of modern imaging to make things easy to grasp.Most of
all,it is the easy to understand images which affirm how we see orbital
motions around the Sun from an orbitally moving Earth that makes this
endeavor disappointing -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The faster orbitally moving Earth causes the slower forward motion of
the outer planets to temporarily fall behind thereby the apparent
motion of the planets against the stellar background was and remains
resolved.
The careless manner in which the resolution for retrogrades was falsely
framed and presented by Newton represents not just a catastrophic
disservice to Copernican and pre-Copernican astronomers but represents
such an information loss that nothing productive becomes possible in
astronomy which requires a high level of intuitive intelligence.
You find it impossible to see where Newton switched the version of
retrogrades ,what they are and how they are resolved from an orbitally
moving Earth -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct," NEWTON
The leftover principle of axial rotation as a seperate motion derived
from the correct way to resolve retrogrades facilitated the great
Western adaption of the 24 hour clock system to terrestrial longitudes
without ever having to justify the correlation between clocks and axial
rotation using an external reference.
Destroying the two main achievements of Western astronomy is no small
feat yet that is exactly what happened.Apparently you can live with it
but I assure you I will not.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 05:49:49
From:
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
oriel36 wrote:
> you spend you
> time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
Why do you think that?
Do you think that orthodox astronomy somehow denies that we live in a
Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun?
Of course, once we use gravity to calculate the three-dimensional
positions of all the planets, then we calculate their positions from an
Earth viewpoint to figure out where to point our telescopes. That's
because our telescopes rest on the surface of the Earth.
Or is using "gravity to calculate the three-dimensional positions of
all the planets" supposed to be our mistake? You have posted things
about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow
having taken a wrong turn.
Since Kepler's laws derive - perfectly, without any mismatch - from the
laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the
inverse-square law of gravity - your objections seem to be bizarre.
Maybe you _are_ inviting us to look at celestial mechanics from a
valuable new perspective that would make it easier to understand, but,
I'm sorry, I have to tell you the truth: right now, all you are
managing to do is annoy and confuse people.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 03:28:12
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > quoting me:
>
> > >We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> > >year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> > >for planting crops with.
>
> > The Muslims don't base their calendar on the sidereal year..... :-)
>
> No, they don't. But they don't (seem to) agree that calendars are for
> planting crops with - they base theirs on something other than the
> tropical year.
>
> John Savard
You pair of numbskulls do not realise that once you have the equable 24
hour day and subsequently equable hours,minutes and seconds,you can
make as many types of 'years' as you wish.Our ancestors simply created
the calendar system with 1 year of 365 days and 3 years of 366 days or
a 1461 day cycle .
This Christmas season you received a present of the outlines of the
great Western adaption of the Equation of Time principles overlayed on
the 16th century discovery that the Earth has an independent axial
rotation.Through this principle,clocks are still correlated to axial
rotation at 1 degree for each min ute of rotation making 24 hours
through 360 degrees in total.
You only get out of astronomy what you bring to it (paraphrasing Shaw)
and the small effort it takes to grasp the sparkling jewel of the
astronomical adaption,where ancient timekeeping meshes with later
heliocentric astronomy rewards the person a thpousand times the effort
put in.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 20:40:29
From:
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
> the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
> of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
> correct
>
> It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
> clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
> raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
> genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
> dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
I thank you; this is a clear statement of a place where you disagree
with the conventional view.
It certainly is true that every 24 hours, the Earth turns to face the
Sun, and this is a more useful figure than the 23 hour and 56 minute
one.
If you are, however, claiming that Tycho Brahe's model of the Solar
System, in which both the Sun and the Earth stood still, is the correct
model of reality, then I would have to disagree with you. We know that
the stars in the sky are not a painted backdrop, but they are instead
other Suns a vast distance away.
Not only, therefore, cannot the celestial sphere rotate around the
Earth once a day, it also cannot do so once a year.
The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
But that isn't the Earth's only motion; it also revolves around the
Sun.
At one time, it was thought that Mercury was tidally-locked in its
orbit, so that one face of it always was turned to the Sun.
The standard textbooks gave it a rotation period of 88 days, and a
revolution period of 88 days.
But it is more natural to think of Mercury as 'standing still' in that
case when it comes to rotation. The rotation on its axis every 88 days
can be thought of as a consequence of its movement around the Sun.
If we think of a revolution around a primary as "including" the
orbiting body facing the primary - as the Moon does always turn one
face to the Earth - then, if one removes the included part from Earth's
axial rotation, indeed, the Earth turns on its axis once every 24
hours.
Generally speaking, however, we don't think of revolution as
'including' rotation, because mathematical laws of adding angular
momenta linearly work more simply the other way - even if it seems less
natural.
> Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
> celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
> orbital motion ?
If we removed Earth's rotation around the Sun, we would not be able to
explain why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun. The Earth is moving in
a circular path; absent the Sun's gravity, that does not constitute an
inertial frame of reference, although with that gravity, it is a
geodesic.
Taking the celestial sphere as stationary allows centrifugal force from
the circular motion of each planet to balance the Sun's gravity on each
planet. Why pick Earth - instead of Jupiter - to be still while the
celestial sphere moves?
> You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
> find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
> of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
> Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
No, the Sun around the Earth is not the same as the Earth around the
Sun. If Sun around Earth, then Jupiter around Earth.
And no stellar parallaxes.
So established astronomy does not believe that at all.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:37:41
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
> > the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
> > of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
> > correct
> >
> > It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
> > clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
> > raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
> > genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
> > dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> I thank you; this is a clear statement of a place where you disagree
> with the conventional view.
>
The dominant and conventional view can be clearly presented through an
animated graphic -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
Every star in that graphic will return to a location in 23 hours 56
minutes and 04 seconds as long as you have 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days day.It would probably be of little use to point out
that it is impossible to work the annual orbital cycle of the Earth
using a system with an alternative number of days every 4th year but
such is Newtonian system which forces planetary motion into the
celestial sphere geometry above.
> It certainly is true that every 24 hours, the Earth turns to face the
> Sun, and this is a more useful figure than the 23 hour and 56 minute
> one.
>
A location on Earth does Not,I repeat,does Not return to face the Sun
every 24 hours.My astronomical ancestors knew that the total length of
a day varies and created the Equation of Time (EoT) system which uses
noon to equalise the variations in the total length of a day to an
equable 24 hour day.Not just equalise to a 24 hour day but use noon to
allow one 24 hour day to elapse into the next 24 hour day.When it was
discovered that the Earth had an axial rotation and this rotation
caused the daily cycle,they simply overlaid the human devised EoT
principle on axial rotation as an independent motion and created the
present system where clocks correlate and are in sync with axial
rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making 24 hours/360
degrees precisely.
> If you are, however, claiming that Tycho Brahe's model of the Solar
> System, in which both the Sun and the Earth stood still, is the correct
> model of reality, then I would have to disagree with you. We know that
> the stars in the sky are not a painted backdrop, but they are instead
> other Suns a vast distance away.
>
Here you plummet back to your celestial sphere roots and that is
fairly usual,these posting are designed to make participants familiar
with the astronomical timekeeping side of things and no demands are
made beyond appreciating what our pre-Copernican and heliocentric
ancestors did and how they did it.
The clock and calendrical systems are two seperate systems,for you
require the equable 24 hour day to calculate the annual orbit as being
over 365 days and roughly 6 hours.It is an astonishingly intricate and
exquisite series of maneuvers which use natural noon to create the
equable 24 hour day as an average against the annual orbit and then
rework this equable day into the calculation of the annual cycle where
you can then create the calendar system using a celestial reference
system.
> Not only, therefore, cannot the celestial sphere rotate around the
> Earth once a day, it also cannot do so once a year.
>
> The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
> and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
>
The 'fact' is that you are working on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3
years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days,an impossible way to work with
the Earth's orbital motion and consequently the annual cycle.
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
You cannot make your 'sidereal' motion fit into Keplerian orbital
geometry ,this one -
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
The Earth travels slower the further it exists from the Sun and faster
the closer it exists,a simple attempt to fit the .986 degree sidereal
view will generate the ugly spectacle of the being contrary to this
Keplerian insight.
> But that isn't the Earth's only motion; it also revolves around the
> Sun.
>
> At one time, it was thought that Mercury was tidally-locked in its
> orbit, so that one face of it always was turned to the Sun.
>
> The standard textbooks gave it a rotation period of 88 days, and a
> revolution period of 88 days.
>
> But it is more natural to think of Mercury as 'standing still' in that
> case when it comes to rotation. The rotation on its axis every 88 days
> can be thought of as a consequence of its movement around the Sun.
>
> If we think of a revolution around a primary as "including" the
> orbiting body facing the primary - as the Moon does always turn one
> face to the Earth - then, if one removes the included part from Earth's
> axial rotation, indeed, the Earth turns on its axis once every 24
> hours.
>
> Generally speaking, however, we don't think of revolution as
> 'including' rotation, because mathematical laws of adding angular
> momenta linearly work more simply the other way - even if it seems less
> natural.
>
I may be doing a great disservice to the astronomical timekeepers who
origially created the clock and calendar systems which we use today
insofar as I am presenting where Flamsteed/Newton jumped the tracks by
creating celestial sphere geometry out of axial rotation and
orientation.
The heliocentric astronomers could easily adapt what the antecedent
astronomical timekeepers created insofar as the unused portion left
over from explaining the observed motion of the planets is axial
rotation.You can see the orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
slower moving outer planets as an independent motion to affirm that we
see planetary motion around the Sun from a moving Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
There is really nothing difficult in making the effort to draw the
conclusion that axial rotation causes the daily cycle and from there to
overlay the pre-existing Equation of Time system which creates the 24
hour day on top of the principle of axial rotation as being constant
and independent.Every single person here uses that principle day in and
day out whether they care to appreciate it or not but I would much
prefer if they did become familiar with this shared astronomical
timekeeping heritage,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric.
> > Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
> > celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
> > orbital motion ?
>
> If we removed Earth's rotation around the Sun, we would not be able to
> explain why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun. The Earth is moving in
> a circular path; absent the Sun's gravity, that does not constitute an
> inertial frame of reference, although with that gravity, it is a
> geodesic.
>
> Taking the celestial sphere as stationary allows centrifugal force from
> the circular motion of each planet to balance the Sun's gravity on each
> planet. Why pick Earth - instead of Jupiter - to be still while the
> celestial sphere moves?
>
In the 20th century they thought they could build a machine for
everything which is why you had emergence of an exotic concept in the
early 20th century ,a concept whoes conclusions match that of a 1898
science fiction novel by H.G.Wells ( The Time Machine).
This being the 21st century and people have a different view of things
including machines and especially how human industrial affects
climate.They are interested in the intricate web of existence and how
astronomy ,climate and geology mesh but unfortunately what passes for
'astronomy' is an exercise in magnification and celestial sphere
concepts such as 'warped space' and other rubbish.
In astronomical affairs,insights emerge from rough outlines and become
spectacular with familiarity as more definition is applied to those
outlines.It is not an exercise of building facts upon facts for I can
tell you that if you jump the tracks with a 'fact' the continuation
will become more and more corrupt until you arrive at a mess such as
this present era has.Even I have to concede the 'elite' elements which
are present in developing intuitive intelligence which affirms or
rejects propositions using physical considerations but it may be so
rare that few could actually deal with the intentional manipulations of
astronomy by Newton and his disciples.I always liked Pascal's
expression of this -
'We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the
expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.'
Pascal
All this is fine and good but there is a serious modification needed to
Copernican reasoning based on variable inclination of the Earth to the
Sun (Chapter 11 De revoltionibus) in explaining the seasons.It is
crucial for climatological purposes to drop variable axial tilt and
switch to a change in orbital orientation to explain the oscillation of
temperature bands -
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
To make a step in the direction of meshing astronomy .climatology and
geology while keeping their identities intact is a tough one but in
developing the inherent intuitive intelligence the initial difficulties
disappear just as athletes will tell you that the hardest part of
training is actually making that initial effort to begin.
Perhaps in future I will be less inclined to explain where Newton went
astray for I am only obliged to present what is correct.
> > You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
> > find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
> > of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
> > Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
>
> No, the Sun around the Earth is not the same as the Earth around the
> Sun. If Sun around Earth, then Jupiter around Earth.
>
> And no stellar parallaxes.
>
> So established astronomy does not believe that at all.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 12:53:40
From:
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
oriel36 wrote:
> It would probably be of little use to point out
> that it is impossible to work the annual orbital cycle of the Earth
> using a system with an alternative number of days every 4th year but
> such is Newtonian system which forces planetary motion into the
> celestial sphere geometry above.
It is true that I see no particular problem with the year and the day
being incommensurable. Synodic or sidereal.
> A location on Earth does Not,I repeat,does Not return to face the Sun
> every 24 hours.My astronomical ancestors knew that the total length of
> a day varies and created the Equation of Time (EoT) system which uses
> noon to equalise the variations in the total length of a day to an
> equable 24 hour day
I left out these complications, due to the elliptical nature of the
Earth's orbit, but I am glad that you are aware of them.
But don't those complications mean that the idea of a 24-hour axial
period that has any meaning *except* as the mean solar day, which is
what you seem to be advocating, is even *less* tenable?
> Here you plummet back to your celestial sphere roots and that is
> fairly usual,these posting are designed to make participants familiar
> with the astronomical timekeeping side of things and no demands are
> made beyond appreciating what our pre-Copernican and heliocentric
> ancestors did and how they did it.
The celestial sphere defines a reference frame. Your "no demands are
made" statement here means I may be misunderstanding you in a different
sense.
Instead of claiming that the "celestial sphere" system - in its
simplicity and consistency - is _wrong_, you may simply be trying to
say that earlier systems of understanding the Solar System can also be
valid and consistent at least from the calendrical and horological
perspectives - even if we are pushed to the Newtonian celestial sphere
system when we try to account for the planets as moving bodies ruled by
Newton's Laws.
But you are advocating a heliocentric viewpoint, not a geocentric one,
and the idea of a heliocentric viewpoint *other* than the current
celestial sphere one - and other than Tycho Brahe's compromise, which
you seem to reject also - causes me a problem, since I can't visualize
what that viewpoint might *be*. Thus, I still don't understand what you
are saying some of our astronomical predecessors were doing.
> > The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
> > and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
>
> The 'fact' is that you are working on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3
> years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days,an impossible way to work with
> the Earth's orbital motion and consequently the annual cycle.
It certainly is true that the Earth spends the *same* amount of time
every year going around the Sun once. But that time happens to be 365
days plus an odd fraction, somewhat less than 1/4 of a day. Why is it
untenable for that to happen?
> The Earth travels slower the further it exists from the Sun and faster
> the closer it exists,a simple attempt to fit the .986 degree sidereal
> view will generate the ugly spectacle of the being contrary to this
> Keplerian insight.
I assure you, when I use a 24 hour day on my clocks and watches, I am
not doing so with the intent of claiming that this mean solar day
matches exactly what I would see on a sundial; I am not denying the
Equation of Time!
In claiming that the 24 hour day is more real than the 23 hour and 56
minute day, it seems like you're trying to work the Equation of Time
backwards, but I'm sure _that_ is only a clumsy and overly-literal
reading on my part.
But it *really* seems to me that the Equation of Time only even begins
to make sense if we start from what you call the erroneous viewpoint of
Newton and Flamsteed, if we start from the celestial sphere as our
basis. So when I say I am baffled by your position, I am not being
merely rhetorical.
> I may be doing a great disservice to the astronomical timekeepers who
> origially created the clock and calendar systems which we use today
> insofar as I am presenting where Flamsteed/Newton jumped the tracks by
> creating celestial sphere geometry out of axial rotation and
> orientation.
>
> The heliocentric astronomers could easily adapt what the antecedent
> astronomical timekeepers created insofar as the unused portion left
> over from explaining the observed motion of the planets is axial
> rotation.You can see the orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
> slower moving outer planets as an independent motion to affirm that we
> see planetary motion around the Sun from a moving Earth -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> There is really nothing difficult in making the effort to draw the
> conclusion that axial rotation causes the daily cycle and from there to
> overlay the pre-existing Equation of Time system which creates the 24
> hour day on top of the principle of axial rotation as being constant
> and independent.Every single person here uses that principle day in and
> day out whether they care to appreciate it or not but I would much
> prefer if they did become familiar with this shared astronomical
> timekeeping heritage,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric.
> Perhaps in future I will be less inclined to explain where Newton went
> astray for I am only obliged to present what is correct.
To the extent that you believe that Newton and Flamsteed went astray,
that the celestial sphere is not a good reference frame to start from,
I believe you to be mistaken. Furthermore, I feel that this error will
hinder your attempts to show how pre-Copernican and heliocentric
astronomy both share a common valid core of ideas between them by
rendering these unintelligible.
Using the celestial sphere as a starting point is not just
"indoctrination". It makes sense as the simplest place to start from
and disentangle all the other individual motions of the various bodies
in the Solar System. Because that's going to be the starting point of
the people reading your words, it will keep them from making sense to
these readers. I wish to grapple with your claim that Newton and
Flamsteed went astray, because I hope to show you how you have
misunderstood them.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 04:03:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > It would probably be of little use to point out
> > that it is impossible to work the annual orbital cycle of the Earth
> > using a system with an alternative number of days every 4th year but
> > such is Newtonian system which forces planetary motion into the
> > celestial sphere geometry above.
>
> It is true that I see no particular problem with the year and the day
> being incommensurable. Synodic or sidereal.
>
When an observer looks out and sees a star return 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds earlier than the night before that system requires that
there must be an additional day every 4th year to maintain that
premise.Somehow a genuine participant in sci.astro.amateur would
acknowledge that this would be impossible to square with the annual
orbital motion of the Earth and axial rotation with a system of 3
years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
> > A location on Earth does Not,I repeat,does Not return to face the Sun
> > every 24 hours.My astronomical ancestors knew that the total length of
> > a day varies and created the Equation of Time (EoT) system which uses
> > noon to equalise the variations in the total length of a day to an
> > equable 24 hour day
>
> I left out these complications, due to the elliptical nature of the
> Earth's orbit, but I am glad that you are aware of them.
>
> But don't those complications mean that the idea of a 24-hour axial
> period that has any meaning *except* as the mean solar day, which is
> what you seem to be advocating, is even *less* tenable?
>
I am presenting the combined wisdom of ancient astronomical timekeeping
systems that you and everyone else will use today and for the rest of
your lives,no doubt the 17th century sidereal 'shortcut' which is
sub-geocentric in content and character gives you the observational
convenience of the Ra/Dec system but the actual principles which create
the clock system and the calendar system are far more intricate and
exquisite,they are also some of the greatest known achievements of
humanity.as they bridge the ancient timekeeping system with
heliocentric geometries.In short,if you cannot match the wisdom of the
men who created the 24 hour system and as a seperate extension; the
calendar system you will not appreciate the adations made by the
astronomers in the 16th century.
The 24 hour system correlating with axial rotation with clocks at
precisely 4 minutes for each degree of rotation admits no other value
or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry.It is
astyronishing that people would choose to believe an alternative value
even allowing that they can still retain the convenience of the Ra/Dec
system while acknowledging that it does not reflect and cannot be used
to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.
> > Here you plummet back to your celestial sphere roots and that is
> > fairly usual,these posting are designed to make participants familiar
> > with the astronomical timekeeping side of things and no demands are
> > made beyond appreciating what our pre-Copernican and heliocentric
> > ancestors did and how they did it.
>
> The celestial sphere defines a reference frame. Your "no demands are
> made" statement here means I may be misunderstanding you in a different
> sense.
>
> Instead of claiming that the "celestial sphere" system - in its
> simplicity and consistency - is _wrong_, you may simply be trying to
> say that earlier systems of understanding the Solar System can also be
> valid and consistent at least from the calendrical and horological
> perspectives - even if we are pushed to the Newtonian celestial sphere
> system when we try to account for the planets as moving bodies ruled by
> Newton's Laws.
>
The celestial sphere system of Flamsteed/Newton is catastrophically
wrong,counter-productive for appreciating astronomical methods and
insights and represents the greatest obstacle to future progress in the
areas of astronomy,climatology,geology and anywhere an accurate
version of the Earth's motions are required.Is that explicit enough ?.
On another less technical level,the normally resilient Western
civilisation cannot withstand a corruption of its greatest astronomical
insights no matter how well established the Newtonian 'theories' have
become,the awful hijacking of intricate and exquisite astronomical
insights and methods by mathematicians is a holocaust by any other name
insofar as it completely obliterates the fuctioning intuitive side
by which individuals affirm or reject geometric proposals and
replaces them with vague equational descriptions.
The triumph of empiricism was that by using linguistic
fireworks,mathematicians could make themselves inheritors of the
Copernican and Keplerian insights however modern imaging and time lapse
footage undoes this by actually making the origfinal insights easy to
grasp and easier to use.
> But you are advocating a heliocentric viewpoint, not a geocentric one,
> and the idea of a heliocentric viewpoint *other* than the current
> celestial sphere one - and other than Tycho Brahe's compromise, which
> you seem to reject also - causes me a problem, since I can't visualize
> what that viewpoint might *be*. Thus, I still don't understand what you
> are saying some of our astronomical predecessors were doing.
>
The information loss in celestial spherte geometry is catastrophic for
it brushes aside the Copernican insight as the 'Earth orbits the Sun'
while the actual methods and insights are far more graceful and contain
far more insights.This thread is based on one such insight which
borrrows from a pre- existing hum an devised principles which create
the equable 24 hour day and applies it to a new discovery that axial
rotation is an independent motion.
>
> > > The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
> > > and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
> >
> > The 'fact' is that you are working on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3
> > years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days,an impossible way to work with
> > the Earth's orbital motion and consequently the annual cycle.
>
> It certainly is true that the Earth spends the *same* amount of time
> every year going around the Sun once. But that time happens to be 365
> days plus an odd fraction, somewhat less than 1/4 of a day. Why is it
> untenable for that to happen?
>
Newton's awful 'achievement ' was making a system based on 3 years of
365 days and 1 year of 366 days sound like a system based on 365.25
days -
PH=C6NOMENON IV.
"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.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of
the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or
the earth about the sun." Newton
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Any person here can appreciate what Kepler's 10th argument for
heliocentricity is rather than that intentionally muddled view of
Newton,again Kepler's argument is perfectly readable and understandable
and I will post it in a seperate thread.
> > The Earth travels slower the further it exists from the Sun and faster
> > the closer it exists,a simple attempt to fit the .986 degree sidereal
> > view will generate the ugly spectacle of the being contrary to this
> > Keplerian insight.
>
> I assure you, when I use a 24 hour day on my clocks and watches, I am
> not doing so with the intent of claiming that this mean solar day
> matches exactly what I would see on a sundial; I am not denying the
> Equation of Time!
>
Ah,you do not know where the Equation of Time comes from but I most
certainly do .To create a correlation between axial rotation and
celestial sphere geometry,Flamsteed had to introduce a variable axial
tilt to the Sun to give the impression that the postion of sunrise and
sunset and the arc of the Sun is a component in the Equation of
Time.Our timekeeping astronomical ancestors concentrated on the Total
length of the day and ignored the variations of sunrise/sunset or
daylight/dartkness asymmetry yet we have this ridiculous situation
where the vulgar 17th century explanations for the Equation of Time
are expressed in hemispherical terms using variable axial tilt -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
I promised in the last response that I would stay clear of presenting
these erroneous views but sometimes even this well shocked mind cannot
believe that men would do and believe rubbish like that.Do you really
think Nasa is doing people a favor by turning ancient wisdom on its
head and dumping that on humanity.
No point in presenting exactly where the Equation of Time comes from
until you drop celestial sphere geometry and star treating the Earth's
motions and orientations locally,something like this in terms of
temperature signatures-
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
> In claiming that the 24 hour day is more real than the 23 hour and 56
> minute day, it seems like you're trying to work the Equation of Time
> backwards, but I'm sure _that_ is only a clumsy and overly-literal
> reading on my part.
>
The Equation of Time is basically a daily 'leap' correction .In its
pre-Copernican format it resets the human devised principle of the 24
hour day back to noon and keeps one 24 hour day elasing into the next
24 hour day.In its heliocentric adaption ,the Equation of Time keeps
clocks in correlation with axial rotation by exploiting the
equalisation from natural noon to clock noon.By switching the human
devised principle which spits the 24 hour day into equal divisions of
hours minutes and seconds,the astronomers divided the Earth
geographically into longitudes and meshed the correlation of the
equable day with geographical seperation at 4 minutes clock time for
each degree of longitude.As the Equation of Time keeps axial rotation
constant for the purpose of maintaining the correlation between 4
minutes of clock time for each degree of rotation as a principle,there
is never any need to bybass orbital motion and go off referencing axial
rotation to a non existent celestial sphere.
If you are not impressed with what our timekeeping ancestors did,both
ancient and Western,then I assume that you wish to keep this particular
creationistylike holocaust going.I do not set myself up against the
major institutions nor the people within them but how they live with
themselves is a question I cannot answer,not because of the false 17
nthe century shortcuts taken but because the original principles are
incredibly subtle ,enjoyable and rightly jewels of astronomy.
> But it *really* seems to me that the Equation of Time only even begins
> to make sense if we start from what you call the erroneous viewpoint of
> Newton and Flamsteed, if we start from the celestial sphere as our
> basis. So when I say I am baffled by your position, I am not being
> merely rhetorical.
>
Start with Flamsteed -
"Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal
time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the
difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the
Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-
.=2E. 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..."
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html
Again.I detest bringing up false conceptions however they are actually
useful in that they show that the person responsible ,in this case
Flamsteed, was not being deceitful,he actually thought that a 'proof'
was necessary and that celestial sphere geometry 'proved' it. It
does'nt and once you jump the conceptual tracks with a premise like
that, heliocentric astronomy becomes impossible.
> > I may be doing a great disservice to the astronomical timekeepers who
> > origially created the clock and calendar systems which we use today
> > insofar as I am presenting where Flamsteed/Newton jumped the tracks by
> > creating celestial sphere geometry out of axial rotation and
> > orientation.
> >
> > The heliocentric astronomers could easily adapt what the antecedent
> > astronomical timekeepers created insofar as the unused portion left
> > over from explaining the observed motion of the planets is axial
> > rotation.You can see the orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
> > slower moving outer planets as an independent motion to affirm that we
> > see planetary motion around the Sun from a moving Earth -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> > There is really nothing difficult in making the effort to draw the
> > conclusion that axial rotation causes the daily cycle and from there to
> > overlay the pre-existing Equation of Time system which creates the 24
> > hour day on top of the principle of axial rotation as being constant
> > and independent.Every single person here uses that principle day in and
> > day out whether they care to appreciate it or not but I would much
> > prefer if they did become familiar with this shared astronomical
> > timekeeping heritage,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric.
>
> > Perhaps in future I will be less inclined to explain where Newton went
> > astray for I am only obliged to present what is correct.
>
> To the extent that you believe that Newton and Flamsteed went astray,
> that the celestial sphere is not a good reference frame to start from,
> I believe you to be mistaken. Furthermore, I feel that this error will
> hinder your attempts to show how pre-Copernican and heliocentric
> astronomy both share a common valid core of ideas between them by
> rendering these unintelligible.
>
The pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomers shared the same
observed data and the same 'predictions' of conjunctions and so on.The
most obvious and most important difference was when it camne to
observed retrogrades.The pre-Copernican astronomers seen these sweeping
periodic motions from a stationary Earth while Copernicus dramatically
altered the view by splitting the Earth into axial and orbital motions
and used orbital motion to account for the observed motionbal behavior
of the planets.
Newton's idea is sub-geocentric insofar as the perception of
retrogrades against the stellar background was common to both Ptolemaic
and Copernican astronomers however the resolution was either from a
stationary Earth (Ptolemy) or an orbitally moving Earth (Copernicus).
Nobody ever talked oif jumping to the Sun to explain apparent
retrograde motion but Newton certainly did -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct," NEWTON
It is customary for Newtonian disciples to run to his defence but it is
not worth it,the orbital motions around the Sun are affirmed from an
orbitally moving Earth,the only way to account for retrogrades -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> Using the celestial sphere as a starting point is not just
> "indoctrination". It makes sense as the simplest place to start from
> and disentangle all the other individual motions of the various bodies
> in the Solar System. Because that's going to be the starting point of
> the people reading your words, it will keep them from making sense to
> these readers. I wish to grapple with your claim that Newton and
> Flamsteed went astray, because I hope to show you how you have
> misunderstood them.
>
> John Savard
It is not a question of misunderstanding anything,the outlines of the
ancient timekeeping systems and the reasoning behind them exist along
with the far more recent heliocentric reasoning.There is no authority
other than the satisfaction gained from making the effort to give the
outlines sharper detail and with contemporary imaging and time lapse
footage I see no reason why it can't be done.
I believe that more intelligent men already know that if current
doctrine matches the conclusions of a 1898 science fiction novel by
H=2EG. Wells (The Time Machine) then something has gone terribly wrong
.In this respect,the enjoyable and statisfying principles of the
original astronomical working methods and insights far outweigh the
novelistic value of the early 20th century Newtonian extensions which
has celestial sphere geometry lurking at its core.
So John, you are not meant to agree with me but rather to put the
geometric conceptions of Newton into modern imaging of planetary
motions and see the information loss for yourself.From there it is
anyone's guess where you take it.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 06:21:57
From:
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
oriel36 wrote:
> When an observer looks out and sees a star return 23 hours 56 minutes
> 04 seconds
later, thus 3 minutes and 56 seconds earlier the next day
> than the night before that system requires that
> there must be an additional day every 4th year to maintain that
> premise.
Actually, that accounts for *one* extra siderial day *every* year, over
and above the number of synodic days in that year.
> Somehow a genuine participant in sci.astro.amateur would
> acknowledge that this would be impossible to square with the annual
> orbital motion of the Earth and axial rotation with a system of 3
> years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
We have leap year days for siderial days, not synodic days, because we
take our meals by the Sun, not the stars.
> The 24 hour system correlating with axial rotation with clocks at
> precisely 4 minutes for each degree of rotation admits no other value
> or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry.
It certainly won't harmonize with celestial sphere geometry, as opposed
to the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second system.
> It is
> astyronishing that people would choose to believe an alternative value
> even allowing that they can still retain the convenience of the Ra/Dec
> system while acknowledging that it does not reflect and cannot be used
> to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.
Given the Equation of Time, it is hard to relate a pure 24 hour system
to celestial sphere geometry in a simplistic fashion.
> The celestial sphere system of Flamsteed/Newton is catastrophically
> wrong,counter-productive for appreciating astronomical methods and
> insights and represents the greatest obstacle to future progress in the
> areas of astronomy,climatology,geology and anywhere an accurate
> version of the Earth's motions are required.Is that explicit enough ?.
It's certainly very categorical. But it doesn't say what's wrong with
it. If I have objects moving around in a room, I will begin by studying
their motion in relation to the walls of that room. Because it makes
sense to start from something that is standing still to simplify
matters and unravel what is going on.
The celestial sphere really is something that stands still.
It is true that because it is so far away, we don't immediately notice
that the Earth moves around the Sun instead of the Sun moving around
the Earth. But that doesn't mean our understanding of celestial motions
makes the two cases indistinguishable.
There is such a thing as stellar parallax; we just have to look harder.
That the celestial sphere, in the simplistic approximation, leaves some
degrees of freedom, and thus doesn't fully define a reference frame -
it just defines angular direction, and not motion or even acceleration
- can be dealt with.
No one disputes that the solar system is centered on the Sun - not the
Earth. Or, more correctly, the Solar System barycenter.
> The information loss in celestial spherte geometry is catastrophic for
> it brushes aside the Copernican insight as the 'Earth orbits the Sun'
> while the actual methods and insights are far more graceful and contain
> far more insights.This thread is based on one such insight which
> borrrows from a pre- existing hum an devised principles which create
> the equable 24 hour day and applies it to a new discovery that axial
> rotation is an independent motion.
> Newton's awful 'achievement ' was making a system based on 3 years of
> 365 days and 1 year of 366 days sound like a system based on 365.25
> days -
A system based on 365.2422 days *is* the right system - except, of
course, that it neglects the fact that the equinoxes precess.
> ... 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..."
And, indeed, the Earth's rotation is isochronical within the limits of
accuracy of any mechanical clock.
Variations in the rate of the Earth's rotation could only be detected
by far more accurate atomic clocks, to which Flamsteed did not have
access.
> Newton's idea is sub-geocentric insofar as the perception of
> retrogrades against the stellar background was common to both Ptolemaic
> and Copernican astronomers however the resolution was either from a
> stationary Earth (Ptolemy) or an orbitally moving Earth (Copernicus).
>
> Nobody ever talked oif jumping to the Sun to explain apparent
> retrograde motion but Newton certainly did -
>
> " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> always seen direct," NEWTON
And that is evidence for Copernicus being right.
> It is customary for Newtonian disciples to run to his defence but it is
> not worth it,the orbital motions around the Sun are affirmed from an
> orbitally moving Earth,the only way to account for retrogrades -
Newton was in no way disputing this.
I'm afraid I fail to see anything wrong at all with "celestial sphere
geometry"; there is the 'information loss' that the celestial sphere
only defines directions, not locations - but we make up for that
because we do have reasons for accepting heliocentricity.
And those reasons *come* from Newton. Who you appear to be
misunderstanding.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:37:54
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > When an observer looks out and sees a star return 23 hours 56 minutes
> > 04 seconds
>
> later, thus 3 minutes and 56 seconds earlier the next day
>
> > than the night before that system requires that
> > there must be an additional day every 4th year to maintain that
> > premise.
>
> Actually, that accounts for *one* extra siderial day *every* year, over
> and above the number of synodic days in that year.
>
You get your answer when you figure out that to keep a star returning
in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier you
require an additional day every 4th year .Not a very good way to
appreciate the annual orbital motion of the Earth John,in fact Newton's
only accomplishment seems to be talking a system of 365.25 days while
using a calendrical system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
days.
> > Somehow a genuine participant in sci.astro.amateur would
> > acknowledge that this would be impossible to square with the annual
> > orbital motion of the Earth and axial rotation with a system of 3
> > years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
>
> We have leap year days for siderial days, not synodic days, because we
> take our meals by the Sun, not the stars.
>
Ah,the original 24 hour day was always meant to be appreciated by
people with wisdom rather than careless men who insist in introducing
the stellar background into the calculation of the daily cycle and
subsequently axial rotation.
The Equation of Time correction resets clock noon to natural noon and
treats the 24 hour day as an average by allowing clock noon to drift
either side of natural noon.The equalisation also allows the equable
24 hour days to elapse into each other without undue concern for the
drift from natural noon and this factor more than any was picked up the
the heliocentric timekeepers in fixing the pace of clocks to axial
rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making 24 hours
through 360 degrees precisely
There is only the total length of the natural day to consider,the noon
reference and how to equalise the variations to an equable 24 day,after
achieving equable hours .minutes and seconds you can attach as many
daily cycles as you like by whatever external references there
exists.The complimentary extension of the principles which produce the
equable 24 hour day was creation of the calendar system by attaching
these equable 24 hour days to the nearest stellar cycle,the 1461 day
celestial sphere cycle or the calendar cycle.
> > The 24 hour system correlating with axial rotation with clocks at
> > precisely 4 minutes for each degree of rotation admits no other value
> > or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry.
>
> It certainly won't harmonize with celestial sphere geometry, as opposed
> to the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second system.
>
> > It is
> > astyronishing that people would choose to believe an alternative value
> > even allowing that they can still retain the convenience of the Ra/Dec
> > system while acknowledging that it does not reflect and cannot be used
> > to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.
>
> Given the Equation of Time, it is hard to relate a pure 24 hour system
> to celestial sphere geometry in a simplistic fashion.
>
Yet this is what you do -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
The 17th century guys introduced a variable axial tilt as a component
in the Equation of Time known as the 'analemma' and declared that the
arc of the Sun across the sky conditioned the difference between
natural noon and clock noon.Considering that the Equation of Time
reflects the difference between the global Total length of a natural
day against the equable 24 hour clock day,watching the powdered wigs of
the 17th century destroy one of the greatest timekeeping achievements
,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric,takes some stomach.The idea that
it takes longer for the Sun to reach noon from its appearance at the
horizon thereby creating the impression of differences in the length of
a 'day' would surely not be mistaken for the total length of a day
!,yet ......
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
> > The celestial sphere system of Flamsteed/Newton is catastrophically
> > wrong,counter-productive for appreciating astronomical methods and
> > insights and represents the greatest obstacle to future progress in the
> > areas of astronomy,climatology,geology and anywhere an accurate
> > version of the Earth's motions are required.Is that explicit enough ?.
>
> It's certainly very categorical. But it doesn't say what's wrong with
> it. If I have objects moving around in a room, I will begin by studying
> their motion in relation to the walls of that room. Because it makes
> sense to start from something that is standing still to simplify
> matters and unravel what is going on.
>
The information loss through Newton's stupid attempt to resolve
retrogrades by framehopping to the Sun is what started this
undisciplined invasion of mathematicians into astronomy and especially
heliocentric astronomy.Careless men who have no feel for the structural
side nor the timekeeping side of astronomy and that is a shame if not a
holocaust.Nobody is going to suggest going back to a situation where
terrestrial,solar system or great structural dynamics does not exist
but working off 17th century celestial sphere geometry with 21st
century data takes some doing.The guys in the 17th century took their
chances with data but who was to know that their ad hoc conclusions
were based on an isolated solar system -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton
No offense John but 80 years after it was discovered that the solar
system participates in a motion in one direction around the galactic
axis,don't you think somebody might even begin to consider how much
this motion combines with planetary heliocentric to influence orbital
geometries or some other piece of information.I guess you really want
to keep you terrstrial ballistics solution for planetary motion with
Isaac in his heaven and the willy,nilly fixed stars
everywhere.Unfortunately Newton give those fixed stars a structure
though Flamsteed's celestial sphere.
> The celestial sphere really is something that stands still.
>
> It is true that because it is so far away, we don't immediately notice
> that the Earth moves around the Sun instead of the Sun moving around
> the Earth. But that doesn't mean our understanding of celestial motions
> makes the two cases indistinguishable.
>
The great Copernican insight provided the basis for the Keplerian
insight and the later Roemerian insight on how an astronomical
adjustment must be made due to finite radiation reaching Earth where
positions vary beyond 186 000 miles.
Flamsteed created celestial sphere geometry,Newton built on it and
Bradley finished off burying the antecedent astronomical insights from
Copernicus to Roemer by invoking celestial sphere geometry in terms of
light speed.
I have the unfortuante task of untangling the celestial mutations from
the original working principles based on what the motion of planets
and satellites looks like from an orbitally moving Earth and how they
are accounted for in terms of Keplerian orbital geometries and the
Roemerian observational adjustment.
Newton tried to trash the working principles of Copernicus ,bundled the
Keplerian and Roemerian insights into an unsightly mess and so exists
this horrible linguistic labyrinth with neither sense nor meaning -
PHENOMENON V.
"Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.
For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that
is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in
the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the
description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers,
and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his
satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the
heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun,
are determined." Newton
I quite understand that the above passage would be irrelevent to you
other than it serves the purpose of muddying descriptions which range
from the incredible vandalism of Copernicus's resolution of retrogrades
to the Keplerian and Roemerian insights but it is also not without
purpose.When you try to grasp absolute/relative space.time and motion
as Newton would have it you begin to see the outlines of a celestial
shere core emerge and like it or not it surfaces in this dire situation
where you believe that the Earth's motions can be justified through the
calendar system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
> There is such a thing as stellar parallax; we just have to look harder.
>
> That the celestial sphere, in the simplistic approximation, leaves some
> degrees of freedom, and thus doesn't fully define a reference frame -
> it just defines angular direction, and not motion or even acceleration
> - can be dealt with.
>
> No one disputes that the solar system is centered on the Sun - not the
> Earth. Or, more correctly, the Solar System barycenter.
>
Ah,the information loss again.If genuine astronomers existed,at least
ones who could match Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler,they would
acknowledge how the observed motions of the planets were accounted
for by an orbitally moving Earth how this was disputed by Newton who
did not affirm this basic tenet of heliocentricity.It seems like
"planetary motions seen from the Sun " is correct but I hardly need to
remind you that the leftover principle of the axial rotational cycle
requires strict adherence to the original principle of isolating
orbital motion to account for observed heliocentric motions.
> > The information loss in celestial spherte geometry is catastrophic for
> > it brushes aside the Copernican insight as the 'Earth orbits the Sun'
> > while the actual methods and insights are far more graceful and contain
> > far more insights.This thread is based on one such insight which
> > borrrows from a pre- existing hum an devised principles which create
> > the equable 24 hour day and applies it to a new discovery that axial
> > rotation is an independent motion.
>
> > Newton's awful 'achievement ' was making a system based on 3 years of
> > 365 days and 1 year of 366 days sound like a system based on 365.25
> > days -
>
> A system based on 365.2422 days *is* the right system - except, of
> course, that it neglects the fact that the equinoxes precess.
>
Newton talked a system of 365.24 days while working with a system based
on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
days.As nobody appears to have the stomach to split the creation of the
24 hour clock system through the Equation of Time correction from the
complimentary convenience of the 1461 day cycle of the calendar
system,it is unlikely that they would appreciate the wisdom of our
timekeeping ancestors.
I do like the fact that at 9 AM each year ( whether there are 365
days or 366 days in a year) a beam of light will enter the roofbox at
Newgrange on Dec 21st denoting the ancient accuracy in determining the
annual cycle through the precise position of opening -
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/roofbox.htm
You can recognise the annual cycle for creating the equable 24 hour
day and then create a calendrical convenience which does not need to be
justified,astronomically or bottom line.Taking nothing away from the
achievement of the builders of Newgrange over 5000 years ago,using the
return of the Sun as a gauge for the maximum asymmetry between
daylight/darkness (21st Dec) would not be that difficult,what would be
impossible would be creating a roofbox using the calendar system with
an alternative amount of days every 4th year.In short our ancient
ancestors could do what you cannot by filtering everything through
celestial sphere 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..."
>
> And, indeed, the Earth's rotation is isochronical within the limits of
> accuracy of any mechanical clock.
>
I have dealt with this matter for far too long and even if the results
are less than satisfactory,I am obliged to continue until somebody with
a better way to explain things comes along to provide a clearer
explanation of the two step process which uses the Equation of Time
system to create the 24 hour day and how each day elapses into the next
and how the heliocentric astronomers overlayed this human devised
principle on terrestrial geography as longitude divisions and the
correlation with the pace of a clock.
Flamsteed tried to take a shortcut but created the holcaust of
sub-geocentric celestial sphere astrology.
> Variations in the rate of the Earth's rotation could only be detected
> by far more accurate atomic clocks, to which Flamsteed did not have
> access.
>
The fundamental principles which Flamsteed used are flawed,they have no
basis,intellectually,intuitively,astronomically,geographically and
bottom line.It was an attempt to force the 1461 day calendar cycle
into planetary geometry by homogenising axial and orbital motions.
> > Newton's idea is sub-geocentric insofar as the perception of
> > retrogrades against the stellar background was common to both Ptolemaic
> > and Copernican astronomers however the resolution was either from a
> > stationary Earth (Ptolemy) or an orbitally moving Earth (Copernicus).
> >
> > Nobody ever talked oif jumping to the Sun to explain apparent
> > retrograde motion but Newton certainly did -
> >
> > " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> > always seen direct," NEWTON
>
> And that is evidence for Copernicus being right.
>
The information loss has been catastrophic and it does take an
effort,in a perjorative sense,to find Newton correct.You actually have
to have a cult mentality to overide the Copernican principles,supported
by Galileo and Kepler,that we see planetary orbital motions around the
Sun from an orbitally moving Earth.
> > It is customary for Newtonian disciples to run to his defence but it is
> > not worth it,the orbital motions around the Sun are affirmed from an
> > orbitally moving Earth,the only way to account for retrogrades -
>
> Newton was in no way disputing this.
>
> I'm afraid I fail to see anything wrong at all with "celestial sphere
> geometry"; there is the 'information loss' that the celestial sphere
> only defines directions, not locations - but we make up for that
> because we do have reasons for accepting heliocentricity.
>
> And those reasons *come* from Newton. Who you appear to be
> misunderstanding.
>
> John Savard
The creation of AU or mean Sun Earth distances is quite a feat,it
appears to give the correct answer for Keplerian geometries while
allowing it to fit neatly into the the celestial sphere geometry of the
calendrically based Ra/Dec system or rather requires the celestial
sphere to work.
To dispense with the Equation of Time correction which equalises the
variations in the total length of the natural unequal day to a 24 hour
clock day,Flamsteed or later geometeras introduced a variable axial
tilt component and expressed the Equation of Time in terms of
variations in daylight/darkness asymmetry where it exists to this day
in all its hemispherical glory -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
Having got rid of the Equation of Time or rather attached a diluted
conception to it,the celestial sphere geometers were clear to
homogenised axial coordinates to celestial sphere geometry,they
borrowed 3 minutes 56 seconds from axial rotation and shoved into a
.986 degree orbital displacement (based on 4 minutes = 1 degree of
rotation hence .986 degree = 3 minutes 56 seconds).
Now John,it is actually a badge of intellectual achievement to know
what they did back in the 17th century and the incredible series of
maneuvers which have people now believing that their conclusions match
a 1898 science fiction novel by H.G. Wells (Time Machine).
If it looks tangled and complicated it is probably the poor way I
explain things but then again I am required to move between the correct
methods and insights and the insights which look right but are actually
quite wrong and destructive and that takes some doing .You will know
this because I am eager to move on to a more productive working
methods for meshing astronomy with terrestrial climatology and geology
while celestial sphere concepts tend towards final conclusions of
warped space,multiple universes,time travel ect.
What is it that you want to do ?,any amount of avenues exist to pursue
and I have little interest in celestial dynamics beyond what is
occuring beneath your feet in the molten/flexible interior below the
fractured crust.I am probably the last person who cares to consider
things from a stationary Earth,not even the interior is stationary and
moves in accordance with rotational dynamics.Unfortunately even here
contemporaries are stuck with stationary Earth/convection cells which
do not recognise rotational dynamics in crustal motion -
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/graphics/Fig32.gif
Having covered many areas from astronomy to climatology to geology in
these few postings it hardly seems possible that anyone would wish to
remain glued to the observational convenience of the Ra/Dec system but
that is not my call.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:09:40
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The great Western adaption
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > When an observer looks out and sees a star return 23 hours 56 minutes
> > 04 seconds
>
> later, thus 3 minutes and 56 seconds earlier the next day
>
> > than the night before that system requires that
> > there must be an additional day every 4th year to maintain that
> > premise.
>
> Actually, that accounts for *one* extra siderial day *every* year, over
> and above the number of synodic days in that year.
>
You get your answer when you figure out that to keep a star returning
in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier you
require an addition 4 th day each year.No a very good way to appreciate
the annual orbital motion of the Earth John,in fact Newton's only
accomplishment seems to be talking a system of 365.25 days while using
a calendrical system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
> > Somehow a genuine participant in sci.astro.amateur would
> > acknowledge that this would be impossible to square with the annual
> > orbital motion of the Earth and axial rotation with a system of 3
> > years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
>
> We have leap year days for siderial days, not synodic days, because we
> take our meals by the Sun, not the stars.
>
Ah,the original 24 hour day was always meant to be appreciated by
people with wisdom rather than careless men who insist in introducing
the stellar background into the calculation of the daily cycle and
subsequently axial rotation.
The Equation of Time correction resets clock noon to natural noon and
treats the 24 hour day as an average by allowing the determination to
drift against natural noon.The equalisation also allows the equable 24
hour days to elapse into each other without undue concern for the drift
from natural noon and this factor more than any was picked up the the
heliocentric timekeepers in fixing the pace of clocks to axial rotation
at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation.
There is only the total length of the natural day to consider,the noon
reference and how to equalise the variations to an equable 24 day,after
achieving equable hours .minutes and seconds you can attach as many
daily cycles as you like by whatever external references there
exists.The complimentary extension of the principles which produce the
equable 24 hour day was creation of the calendar system by attaching
these equable 24 hour days to the nearest stellar cycle,the 1461 day
celestial sphere cycle or the calendar cycle.
> > The 24 hour system correlating with axial rotation with clocks at
> > precisely 4 minutes for each degree of rotation admits no other value
> > or no attempt to force it into a celestial sphere geometry.
>
> It certainly won't harmonize with celestial sphere geometry, as opposed
> to the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second system.
>
> > It is
> > astyronishing that people would choose to believe an alternative value
> > even allowing that they can still retain the convenience of the Ra/Dec
> > system while acknowledging that it does not reflect and cannot be used
> > to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.
>
> Given the Equation of Time, it is hard to relate a pure 24 hour system
> to celestial sphere geometry in a simplistic fashion.
>
Yet this is what you do -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
The 17th century guys introduced a variable axial tilt as a component
in the Equation of Time known as the 'analemma' and declared that the
arc of the Sun across the sky conditioned the difference between
natural noon and clock noon.Considering that the Equation of Time
reflects the difference between the global Total length of a natural
day against the equable 24 hour clock day,watching the powdered wigs of
the 17th century destroy one of the greatest timekeeping achievements
,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric,takes some stomach.
> > The celestial sphere system of Flamsteed/Newton is catastrophically
> > wrong,counter-productive for appreciating astronomical methods and
> > insights and represents the greatest obstacle to future progress in the
> > areas of astronomy,climatology,geology and anywhere an accurate
> > version of the Earth's motions are required.Is that explicit enough ?.
>
> It's certainly very categorical. But it doesn't say what's wrong with
> it. If I have objects moving around in a room, I will begin by studying
> their motion in relation to the walls of that room. Because it makes
> sense to start from something that is standing still to simplify
> matters and unravel what is going on.
>
The information loss through Newton's stupid attempt to resolve
retrogrades by framehopping to the Sun is what started this
undisciplined invasion of mathematicians into astronomy and especially
heliocentric astronomy.Careless men who have no feel for the structural
side nor the timekeeping side of astronomy,not even when basic
principles are pointed out to them.
> The celestial sphere really is something that stands still.
>
> It is true that because it is so far away, we don't immediately notice
> that the Earth moves around the Sun instead of the Sun moving around
> the Earth. But that doesn't mean our understanding of celestial motions
> makes the two cases indistinguishable.
>
The great Copernican insight provided the basis for the Keplerian
insight and the later Roemerian insight on how an astronomical
adjustment must be made due to finite radiation reaching Earth where
positions vary beyond 186 000 miles.
Flamsteed created celestial sphere geometry,Newton built on it and
Bradley finished off burying the antecedent astronomical insights from
Copernicus to Roemer by invoking celestial sphere geometry in terms of
light speed.
I have the unfortuante task of untangling the celestial mutations from
the original working principles based on what the motion of planets
and satellites looks like from an orbitally moving Earth and how they
are accounted for in terms of Keplerian orbital geometries and the
Roemerian observational adjustment.
Newton tried to trash the working principles of Copernicus ,bundled the
Keplerian and Roemerian insights into an unsightly mess and so exists
this horrible linguistic labyrinth with neither sense nor meaning -
PHENOMENON V.
"Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.
For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that
is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in
the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the
description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers,
and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his
satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the
heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun,
are determined." Newton
I quite understand that the above passage would be irrelevent to you
other than it serves the purpose of muddying descriptions which range
from the incredible vandalism of Copernicus's resolution of retrogrades
to the Keplerian and Roemerian insights but it is also not without
purpose.When you try to grasp absolute/relative space.time and motion
as Newton would have it you begin to see the outlines of a celestial
shere core emerge and like it or not it surfaces in this dire situation
where you believe that the Earth's motions can be justified through the
calendar system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
> There is such a thing as stellar parallax; we just have to look harder.
>
> That the celestial sphere, in the simplistic approximation, leaves some
> degrees of freedom, and thus doesn't fully define a reference frame -
> it just defines angular direction, and not motion or even acceleration
> - can be dealt with.
>
> No one disputes that the solar system is centered on the Sun - not the
> Earth. Or, more correctly, the Solar System barycenter.
>
Ah,the information loss again.If genuine astronomers existed,at least
ones who could match Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler,they would
acknowledge how the observed motions of the planets were accounted
for by an orbitally moving Earth how this was disputed by Newton who
did not affirm this basic tenet of heliocentricity.It seems like
"planetary motions seen from the Sun " is correct but I hardly need to
remind you that the leftover principle of the axial rotational cycle
requires strict adherence to the original principle of isolating
orbital motion to account for observed heliocentric motions.
> > The information loss in celestial spherte geometry is catastrophic for
> > it brushes aside the Copernican insight as the 'Earth orbits the Sun'
> > while the actual methods and insights are far more graceful and contain
> > far more insights.This thread is based on one such insight which
> > borrrows from a pre- existing hum an devised principles which create
> > the equable 24 hour day and applies it to a new discovery that axial
> > rotation is an independent motion.
>
> > Newton's awful 'achievement ' was making a system based on 3 years of
> > 365 days and 1 year of 366 days sound like a system based on 365.25
> > days -
>
> A system based on 365.2422 days *is* the right system - except, of
> course, that it neglects the fact that the equinoxes precess.
>
Newton talked a system of 365.24 days while working with a system based
on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
days.As nobody appears to have the stomach to split the creation of the
24 hour clock system through the Equation of Time correction from the
complimentary convenience of the 1461 day cycle of the calendar
system,it is unlikely that they would appreciate the wisdom of our
timekeeping ancestors.
I do like the fact that at 9 AM each year ( whether there are 365
days or 366 days in a year) a beam of light will enter the roofbox at
Newgrange on Dec 21st denoting the ancient accuracy in determining the
annual cycle through the precise position of opening -
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/roofbox.htm
You can recognise the annual cycle for creating the equable 24 hour
day and then create a calendrical convenience which does not need to be
justified,astronomically or bottom line.Taking nothing away from the
achievement of the builders of Newgrange over 5000 years ago,using the
return of the Sun as a gauge for the maximum asymmetry between
daylight/darkness (21st Dec) would not be that difficult,what would be
impossible would be creating a roofbox using the calendar system with
an alternative amount of days every 4th year.In short our ancient
ancestors could do what you cannot by filtering everything through
celestial sphere 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..."
>
> And, indeed, the Earth's rotation is isochronical within the limits of
> accuracy of any mechanical clock.
>
I have dealt with this matter for far too long and even if the results
are less than satisfactory,I am obliged to continue until somebody with
a better way to explain things comes along to provide a clearer
explanation of the two step process which uses the Equation of Time
system to create the 24 hour day and how each day elapses into the next
and how the heliocentric astronomers overlayed this human devised
principle on terrestrial geography as longitude divisions and the
correlation with the pace of a clock.
Flamsteed tried to take a shortcut but created the holcaust of
sub-geocentric celestial sphere astrology.
> Variations in the rate of the Earth's rotation could only be detected
> by far more accurate atomic clocks, to which Flamsteed did not have
> access.
>
The fundamental principles which Flamsteed used are flawed,they have no
basis,intellectually,intuitively,astronomically,geographically and
bottom line.It was an attempt to force the 1461 day calendar cycle
into planetary geometry by homogenising axial and orbital motions.
> > Newton's idea is sub-geocentric insofar as the perception of
> > retrogrades against the stellar background was common to both Ptolemaic
> > and Copernican astronomers however the resolution was either from a
> > stationary Earth (Ptolemy) or an orbitally moving Earth (Copernicus).
> >
> > Nobody ever talked oif jumping to the Sun to explain apparent
> > retrograde motion but Newton certainly did -
> >
> > " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> > always seen direct," NEWTON
>
> And that is evidence for Copernicus being right.
>
The information loss has been catastrophic and it does take an
effort,in a perjorative sense,to find Newton correct.You actually have
to have a cult mentality to overide the Copernican principles,supported
by Galileo and Kepler,that we see planetary orbital motions around the
Sun from an orbitally moving Earth.
> > It is customary for Newtonian disciples to run to his defence but it is
> > not worth it,the orbital motions around the Sun are affirmed from an
> > orbitally moving Earth,the only way to account for retrogrades -
>
> Newton was in no way disputing this.
>
> I'm afraid I fail to see anything wrong at all with "celestial sphere
> geometry"; there is the 'information loss' that the celestial sphere
> only defines directions, not locations - but we make up for that
> because we do have reasons for accepting heliocentricity.
>
> And those reasons *come* from Newton. Who you appear to be
> misunderstanding.
>
> John Savard
The creation of AU or mean Sun Earth distances is quite a feat,it
appears to give the correct answer for Keplerian geometries while
allowing it to fit neatly into the the celestial sphere geometry of the
calendrically based Ra/Dec system or rather requires the celestial
sphere to work.
To dispense with the Equation of Time correction which equalises the
variations in the total length of the natural unequal day to a 24 hour
clock day,Flamsteed or later geometeras introduced a variable axial
tilt component and expressed the Equation of Time in terms of
variations in daylight/darkness asymmetry where it exists to this day
in all its hemispherical glory -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
Having got rid of the Equation of Time or rather attached a diluted
conception to it,the celestial sphere geometers were clear to
homogenised axial coordinates to celestial sphere geometry,they
borrowed 3 minutes 56 seconds from axial rotation and shoved into a
.986 degree orbital displacement (based on 4 minutes = 1 degree of
rotation hence .986 degree = 3 minutes 56 seconds).
Now John,it is actually a badge of intellectual achievement to know
what they did back in the 17th century and the incredible series of
maneuvers which have people now believing that their conclusions match
a 1898 science fiction novel by H.G. Wells (Time Machine).
If it looks tangled and complicated it is probably the poor way I
explain things but then again I am required to move between the correct
methods and insights and the insights which look right but are actually
quite wrong and destructive and that takes some doing .You will know
this because I am eager to move on to a more productive working
methods for meshing astronomy with terrestrial climatology and geology
while celestial sphere concepts tend towards final conclusions of
warped space,multiple universes,time travel ect.
|
|
