| |
Main
Date: 22 Apr 2007 12:47:50
From: oriel36
Subject: what has happened to people
|
I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
There is no reason for it,none !,not for one moment let alone the
years showing where the work of the pre-Copernican astronomers mesh
with the heliocentric astronomers and on to John Harrison and his
accurate watches for determining longitude based on the correlation.
No era in history has done this,no civilisation has intentionally
destroyed the careful work of so many and for what,for a hooby in
magnification or spacetime nonsense that could be found in a 19th
century novel.
All because a man made a simple mistake in 1676 in a statement which
bears a false correlation -
"... 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... " John Flamsteed
If a person cannot affirm a basic fact such as the relationship clocks
have to terrestrial geometry and geography then God help us all.
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 04:46:23
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 29, 5:22 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > To make it
> > work requires that you use a 1461 day calendrical cycle where 4 orbits
> > takes place in a 3 year/365 day and 1 year/366 day format.
>
> Why is this a problem? Is there any reason to expect that the number
> of days (whether synodic or sidereal) in a year (take your pick,
> tropical, sidereal, anomalistic) would be an integer, or even a
> rational number?
>
> John Savard
The raw annual orbital cycle of the Earth cannot be forced into a
1461 calendrical system based on 3years/365 days and 1 year /366
days.
If you are using the return of a star to justify axial and orbital
motion and require a 1461 day calendrical cycle to do it insofar as to
keep the system ticking over requires an alternative number of days
(3/365,1/366) to express 4 raw orbital cycles,then an intelligent
person would pick up straight away that something is terribly wrong.
That the resolution involves appreciating how the clock/axial rotation
correlation is a complimentary extension of Coprnican reasoning based
on isolating orbital motion in accounting for the observed behavior of
the planets and axial rotation as the reason for the daily cycle.The
delicate part is resognising how the average 24 hour day transfers to
constant and consecuitive axial cycles where 4 minutes clock time
equate to 1 degree of geographical/geometric seperation.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 04:46:16
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 29, 5:30 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > No hypothetical observer on the Sun is needed to explain our motion
> > along with the others around the central Sun,just a joyous
> > appreciation of the original reasoning of Copernicus supported by
> > people like Kepler and Galileo.
>
> If I am riding in a bus, and this bus overtakes a car riding in a lane
> beside me, I can certainly understand how it looks from my viewpoint,
> but it would naturally occur to me that the matter would be more
> simply understood from the viewpoint of an observer standing on the
> sidewalk.
>
The clock/axial rotation correlation is a complimentary extension of
resolving retorgrades through an orbitally moving Earth overtaking the
slower forward moving outer planets.Leaving axial rotation to explain
the daily cycle.The exploitation of the existing Equation of Time
principles which create the 24 hour day and keep those days elapsing
seamlessly into the next was transfered to the concept of consecuitive
rotational cycles hence the 24 hour/360 degree correlation is
inviolate.
Flamsteed's false correlation between axial rotation and celestial
sphere geometry allied with Newton's false conceptions for retrogrades
and their resolution represent a crisis of sorts insofar their false
notions have rotted astronomy from the inside for so long to the
extent that intelligent men can find an argument to match the orbital
motion of the Earth with the calendar cycle without objection.
> Even if there is actually no such observer there, or even no sidewalk.
>
> However, your problem *is* actually shared by orthodox scientists.
> Although it would make the math simpler to understand for many people,
> they often proclaim that it is wicked and evil to imagine that our
> three-dimensional Universe is a bubble embedded in a Euclidean four-
> dimensional space as a way to understand how space itself could be
> curved. (Indeed, that _is_ inadequate as a way to account for what
> happens to time in General Relativity, but I suspect something could
> be found were it not for want of trying.)
>
> John Savard
I do not have a problem and neither do you.The people who have a
problem are those who have a natural talent for astronomical
reasoning based on geometrical/physical considerations yet cannot
find their way past the empirical mutations of Copernican reasoning.It
must be a terrible existence knowing that they have an intutive talent
yet cannot find an outlet for it and I suspect many good kids and
adults look for other things to fill that void .Between guys who think
astronomy is a photographic-magnification exercise and the theorists
who have no intutive feel for astronomical affairs ,the geometry and
physical considerations involved,the triumph of Western astronomical
tradition turns in on itself and destroys not just the astronomical
tradition but the civilisation itself.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 09:30:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> No hypothetical observer on the Sun is needed to explain our motion
> along with the others around the central Sun,just a joyous
> appreciation of the original reasoning of Copernicus supported by
> people like Kepler and Galileo.
If I am riding in a bus, and this bus overtakes a car riding in a lane
beside me, I can certainly understand how it looks from my viewpoint,
but it would naturally occur to me that the matter would be more
simply understood from the viewpoint of an observer standing on the
sidewalk.
Even if there is actually no such observer there, or even no sidewalk.
However, your problem *is* actually shared by orthodox scientists.
Although it would make the math simpler to understand for many people,
they often proclaim that it is wicked and evil to imagine that our
three-dimensional Universe is a bubble embedded in a Euclidean four-
dimensional space as a way to understand how space itself could be
curved. (Indeed, that _is_ inadequate as a way to account for what
happens to time in General Relativity, but I suspect something could
be found were it not for want of trying.)
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 09:22:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> To make it
> work requires that you use a 1461 day calendrical cycle where 4 orbits
> takes place in a 3 year/365 day and 1 year/366 day format.
Why is this a problem? Is there any reason to expect that the number
of days (whether synodic or sidereal) in a year (take your pick,
tropical, sidereal, anomalistic) would be an integer, or even a
rational number?
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 07:04:44
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 29, 1:16 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:02 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Every single person here has the time lapse footage of Jupiter and
> > Saturn before them to affirm the view that the Earth moves to explain
> > the motions of those planets.It is now one of the easiest insights to
> > appreciate yet lesser minds still retain a corrupt view of Newton
> > which still dominates this dark age of astronomy.
>
> This is proof of the odiousness of your thinking. I doubt that there
> is anyone here who does not understand this thoroughly. But your
> claiming that we do not is mindless.
>
> The other thing that is mindles is thinking that Newton's view
> "destroys" anything. It does not. It simply helps one to see
> retrogrades correctly - as illusions based on our own orbital
> movement.
>
> I have explained this in the simplest terms possible, but you just
> can't understand it. And that is sad, that someone could use such
> seemingly full vocabulary, but not understand the things that even a
> typical 9-year-old can understand with proper illustration.
>
> Austin
You are O.K.,don't worry about it .
The images of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn cuts the
Newtonian rubbish to pieces and the original texts of
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo finish him off.There is no real
competition between 21st century technology and late 17th century junk
based on a mathematician's attempt to understand retrogrades and their
resolution through the orbital motion of the Earth.
It is quite a story how we arrived at a point where you have 3
centuries of empirical rubbish that can removed with a single set of
images formed into time lapse footage -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
No hypothetical observer on the Sun is needed to explain our motion
along with the others around the central Sun,just a joyous
appreciation of the original reasoning of Copernicus supported by
people like Kepler and Galileo.
This dark era in astronomy began with a single false correlation by
Flamsteed and from there to the introduction of celestial sphere
geometry into heliocentric reasoning by Isaac.I do not know what age
you are but the understanding of what retrogrades are (plotted
positions against the stellar background) and their resolution
(through the orbital motion of the Earth between Venus and Mars) do
not support an alternative view such as Newton's -
"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
Unless you have a severe disability and empirical indoctrination is a
disability,we see our motion and that of the other planets around the
central star from an orbitally moving Earth,that is how Copernicus
understood it,Kepler and Galileo understood it and if you have any
sense,then so should you understand it.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 05:16:11
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 10:02 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Every single person here has the time lapse footage of Jupiter and
> Saturn before them to affirm the view that the Earth moves to explain
> the motions of those planets.It is now one of the easiest insights to
> appreciate yet lesser minds still retain a corrupt view of Newton
> which still dominates this dark age of astronomy.
This is proof of the odiousness of your thinking. I doubt that there
is anyone here who does not understand this thoroughly. But your
claiming that we do not is mindless.
The other thing that is mindles is thinking that Newton's view
"destroys" anything. It does not. It simply helps one to see
retrogrades correctly - as illusions based on our own orbital
movement.
I have explained this in the simplest terms possible, but you just
can't understand it. And that is sad, that someone could use such
seemingly full vocabulary, but not understand the things that even a
typical 9-year-old can understand with proper illustration.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 03:54:09
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 9:13 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> John, he is a poor sick person who clearly suffers from a serious mental
> illness. Leave him be.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye
Don't worry Greg,you can still keep your GoTo observational system as
long as you recognise that it cannot be used to justify the axial and
orbital motions of the Earth.
There is an excellent story about how accurate clocks were developed
for the purpose of exploiting the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency and
involves some of the big names you are familiar with -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_Prize
What is new is how the Equation of Time correction is involved in the
two step process,first as the human devised creation of the 24 hour
day and then as the bridging principle between the average 24 hour day
and 'constant' axial rotation.
It is an incredible journey through the accomplishments of men and the
catastrophic error unwittingly created by Flamsteed and left to go
unchecked for the better part of 3 centuries.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 03:41:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 11:19 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > More to the point, what result can come from pitting mythology against
> > pseudoscience?
>
> Since, in another post, G. Kelleher notes that what he is rejecting is
> the empiricism of Newton and Flamsteed, it becomes clear that he
> cannot be reached with rational and scientific arguments concerning
> the Earth's motions.
>
Not at all,it is a simple choice before people that they never thought
existed.
Clocks keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour making
exactly 24 hours/360 degrees is a way of affirming Copernican
heliocentric reasoning.The reasoning of Copernicus can now be easily
understood through time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking the
slower forward moving outer planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
A person who acknowledges the spirit of the resolution for apparent
retrogrades is likely to appreciate the two step process where the
Equation of Time principles of the eqauble 24 hour day and how each
day elapses into the next was tranfered to axial rotation and
terrestrial longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
> In a table of the Solar System, I too find it strange that the
> sidereal rotation periods of the planets are what is listed. This
> reflects how much angular momentum they have, which is all well and
> good, but popular interest would center on the conditions experienced
> on the surfaces of the planets. And for this, the synodic day - 24
> hours, in the case of Earth - is more relevant.
>
> If G. Kelleher's objections were simply to paying too much attention
> to an attribute of planets that is of only an esoteric technical
> interest, I would be on his side.
>
> It has taken a long time for me to even be sure _what_ he is talking
> about. But when he makes it clear that he objects to the claim that
> the sidereal day is isochronous, then his position has real empirical
> content, and that content is fallacious. Yet, he knows perfectly well
> that there is such a thing as the Equation of Time.
>
So much more than that.The idea that you can use the return of a star
to a meridian to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth is
false and Flansteed tried to do just that -
"... 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... " John Flamsteed
Tell me what happens between Feb 28th and March 1st and Feb 29th and
March 1st in a leap year. The answer is nothing for in order to
work,the return of a star to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds requires a calendrical cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
of 366 days and to describe the 4 orbital cycles of the Earth using
that system is impossible.
> Perhaps his beliefs fly in the face of reality because he has made
> some conceptual mistake. There was Professor Herbert Dingle, who
> "proved" that special relativity was inconsistent with itself by
> working out a relativity problem in two ways; one in which "time at a
> distance" appeared explicitly, so he omitted that factor, and got a
> non-relativistic answer, and one where it did not, and thus he got the
> correct answer. Something like someone proving that arithmetic was
> inconsistent by adding a sum in two ways, in one of which the process
> of doing carries was explicit, and in which he refused to perform the
> carries.
>
The entire history of the Longitude story is based on how clocks keep
in sync with axial rotation at 24 hours/360 degrees.What makes it work
is the two step process based on the noon Equation of Time correction
which straddles pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomies insofar as
the 24 hour day system was overlaid on terrestrial geography and the
average 24 hour day was adapted to axial rotation as a constant
cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer
So what if I am the first to explain how the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency is a way to affirm Copernican heliocentricity,as far as I
am concerned it is a shared heritage and there anyway.
> If I could probe into his conceptual efforts, I could perhaps help him
> see his error.
>
> But when he indicates it is empiricism he rejects, then clearly if he
> rejects working from facts and reality, a discussion on such grounds
> is fruitless! So I try to reach him in other language, to find a
> language which he understands. Perhaps he disdains empiricism because
> it is materialistic and non-religious. Well, then, I will show that
> those who found Galileo a threat to religion would find his ideas far
> worse, as he has dispensed with the one thing, the irrefutable
> evidence of Nature, which can ultimately force even die-hard religious
> authorities to bend a little.
>
> John Savard
Galileo reiterates the same reaoning for retrogrades and their
resolution as Copernicus.He says nothing of hypothetical observers
looking out at planetary motion from the Sun but rather - Eppur Si
Muove .
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .
You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion
-- if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
Contemporary imaging cuts the empirical attempt to deal and resolve
retrogrades to pieces and the original texts of Copernicus.Kepler and
Galileo finishes the hypothetical observer on the Sun off -
"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
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 03:01:47
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 4:19 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The correlation which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation at
> > precisely 24 hours for each 360 degree cycle never requires a
> > reference to the stellar background much less astrological geometry
> > which uses the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes
> > 04 seconds.
>
> .
> I'm not sure why it is desirable to avoid a reference to the stellar
> background.
>
Refernecing axial rotation the stellar background or what amounts to
the same thing,using the return of a star to justify axial and orbital
motion is about the worst possible thing that can be done.To make it
work requires that you use a 1461 day calendrical cycle where 4 orbits
takes place in a 3 year/365 day and 1 year/366 day format.
> > The Equation of Time is a consequence of the human
> > recognition from observed data that the total length of the natural
> > cycle is unequal,it is unequal; because of the change of the solar
> > radiation/orbital shadow boundary in accordance with Keplerian orbital
> > motion and geometry.
>
> Yes, that is quite true: but the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second rotation
> of the Earth which you so deprecate is an intrinsic *part* of that
> Keplerian orbital motion and geometry.
>
The 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value attached to axial rotation
emerged with Flamsteed,it forms the basis of the Newtonian creation of
mean Sun/Earth distances but considering that it uses a .986 degree/3
minute 56 second value for orbital displacement,any attempt to fit
that notion into an elliptical framework will produce a horrible
spectacle where the Earth travels faster at the aphelion and slower at
the perihelion -
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif
> Now I'm beginning to wonder if you are trying to tell us that lusting
> after inertial frames is evil, and so we shoud view the Equation of
> Time as superimposed on Keplerian motion as a substitute for a
> perfectly circular orbit.
>
The Equation of Time is one of those supreme human achievements that
can be enjoyed by all.It represents the human intuitive and
intellectual intelligence to create the 24 hour day, keep each of
these 24 hour days elapsing into the next,create equable divisions of
hours,minutes and seconds by which to gauged the standard pace of
everything else and ultimately the convenience of civil tiimekeeping.
One of the greatest adaptions of the Equation of Time system, which is
based on a correction of natural noon to 24 hour noon, is the transfer
of the average 24 hour day to a correlation with terrestrail
longitudes and geography.The exploitation of the noon correction which
keeps one 24 hour day elasping into the next 24 hour day was
transfered to the axial cycle and treats axial rotation as constant -
4 minutes for each degree, 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours for each
rotational cycle.
The Equation of Time is now really important for climatological
purposes insofar as it represents the rate of change in the solar
radiation/orbital shadow boundary (SR/OS) and how it alters for each
cycle as a location returns to noon.The 17th century numbskulls
imposed an axial tilt component into the Equation of Time in order to
keep rotational orientation fixed to Polaris and rendered the Equation
of Time in seasonal terms based on inclination,in others
words,instead of the total length of a day which is a global phenomena
they imposed the idea of hemispherical daylight/darkness asymmetry as
a component.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
> > In short,the people who are supposed to know more about climatology
> > and their astronomical origins are people like yourself who are
> > willing to make up whatever story you need to support idiotic 17th
> > century agendas.
>
> Speaking of 17th century agendas...
>
> It has not escaped our notice that certain students of the heavens,
> among them Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, have proposed that rather
> than the Earth being the fixed center of the cosmos, around which the
> heavenly bodies move in their courses, that rather the Sun and the
> vault of the heavens in which the stars repose are fixed, and the
> Earth moves around the Sun.
>
It is bad enough that I present the original texts of
Copernicus ,Kepler and Galileo allied with the time lapse footage to
show where the 17th century guys brought in false
precepts,specifically astrological geometry into heliocentric thinking
but this contemporary insistence on retaining the celestial sphere
background in incredible,not because it is pre-heliocentric but rather
because it is sub-geocentric.
The Ptolemaic astronomers had arranged the Sun's position between
Venus and Mars until Copernicus replaced it with the orbital motion of
the Earth leaving axial rotation to explain the daily cycle,he
accurately states it himself in Chapter 10 of De revolutionibus -
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
The important point is the difference between observations made from a
stationary Earth which was the pre-heliocentric doctrine to what is
seen from an orbitally moving/axially rotating Earth which is the
major Copernican conclusions.The Newtonian commentary of what orbital
motion looks like from the Sun has no background in pre-heliocentric
or heliocentric astronomy .
> This bold idea has aroused much criticism as being contrary both to
> every-day experience and to Scripture.
>
> However, while this bold hypothesis should still be regarded as
> unproven, it is also a mistake to regard it as heretical. Scripture is
> inerrant on all matters of faith and morals, but it is expressed in
> the human language of the time. Even should the heliocentric theory
> come to be generally accepted among men of learning at some distant
> date in the future, people would still, in ordinary conversation,
> speak of the Sun rising and setting, rather than the Earth turning its
> face to the Sun at the point on which one stands.
>
Sir,you believe that the Earth's cycle through 360 degrees in 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds and turn what way you will,it amounts to a flat
out rejection of Copernican reasoning,its pre -heliocentric
observational background and exists in a sub-geocentric /celestial
sphere world of its own.
> Thus, if the empirical observation of Nature forces us, reluctantly,
> to accept that the heliocentric theory represents the actual system of
> the cosmos, what would be happening in that event is that our human
> understanding of Scripture would be amended by observation of God's
> creation. The heavens, like Scripture, are of God, and thus neither
> the heavens nor Scripture are to be rejected.
>
> But as Scripture does record that Joshua told the Sun, and not the
> Earth, to stand still, we can accept no lesser authority than God's
> own creation for overturning the sense of Scripture, even if this
> might be only its apparent sense, or if it concerns a matter
> inessential to salvation.
>
This is empirical thumbsucking and it is painful to witness.
> Thus, what we may confidently abjure as at least erroneous, if not
> also heretical, would be any viewpoint which advances the heliocentric
> view not as a necessary empirical consequence of observation, which is
> imposed on us by God through His Creation, but one which casts the
> system of the cosmos as an aesthetic choice subject to the will of
> man.
>
> Scripture, when properly understood, is in complete harmony with
> nature, as both are creations of the Most High God. Scripture is meant
> to address that in which we are largely left uninstructed by nature,
> to guide the human will into conformity with the love of God and the
> love of one's fellow man. Thus, in the realm of matters that are
> determined by human choice, rather than defined in nature, Scripture
> reigns supreme and unchallenged.
>
> John Savard
Thank you for the sermon but as a Christian I much prefer the
technical details which support heliocentric reasoning and the
complimentary adaption which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation
at 24 hours/360 degrees.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 15:19:11
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> More to the point, what result can come from pitting mythology against
> pseudoscience?
Since, in another post, G. Kelleher notes that what he is rejecting is
the empiricism of Newton and Flamsteed, it becomes clear that he
cannot be reached with rational and scientific arguments concerning
the Earth's motions.
In a table of the Solar System, I too find it strange that the
sidereal rotation periods of the planets are what is listed. This
reflects how much angular momentum they have, which is all well and
good, but popular interest would center on the conditions experienced
on the surfaces of the planets. And for this, the synodic day - 24
hours, in the case of Earth - is more relevant.
If G. Kelleher's objections were simply to paying too much attention
to an attribute of planets that is of only an esoteric technical
interest, I would be on his side.
It has taken a long time for me to even be sure _what_ he is talking
about. But when he makes it clear that he objects to the claim that
the sidereal day is isochronous, then his position has real empirical
content, and that content is fallacious. Yet, he knows perfectly well
that there is such a thing as the Equation of Time.
Perhaps his beliefs fly in the face of reality because he has made
some conceptual mistake. There was Professor Herbert Dingle, who
"proved" that special relativity was inconsistent with itself by
working out a relativity problem in two ways; one in which "time at a
distance" appeared explicitly, so he omitted that factor, and got a
non-relativistic answer, and one where it did not, and thus he got the
correct answer. Something like someone proving that arithmetic was
inconsistent by adding a sum in two ways, in one of which the process
of doing carries was explicit, and in which he refused to perform the
carries.
If I could probe into his conceptual efforts, I could perhaps help him
see his error.
But when he indicates it is empiricism he rejects, then clearly if he
rejects working from facts and reality, a discussion on such grounds
is fruitless! So I try to reach him in other language, to find a
language which he understands. Perhaps he disdains empiricism because
it is materialistic and non-religious. Well, then, I will show that
those who found Galileo a threat to religion would find his ideas far
worse, as he has dispensed with the one thing, the irrefutable
evidence of Nature, which can ultimately force even die-hard religious
authorities to bend a little.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 15:04:42
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007 08:19:52 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >Scripture is
> >inerrant on all matters of faith and morals...
>
> Statements like that are likely to get you tossed in the same loony bin
> as Gerald.
.
Given the replies that were occasioned by my *first* reply to you,
apparently some people still haven't gotten the point.
If *that* statement is likely to get me tossed into the loony bin,
what about the following statement in that same post:
"Even should the heliocentric theory
come to be generally accepted among men of learning at some distant
date in the future,"
As I said; read carefully.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 12:53:51
From: thad@thadlabs.com
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 12:15 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> [...]
> Incidentally, I should *hope* that, while a statement like "Scripture
> is inerrant on all matters of faith and morals" might get a person
> killfiled as a bore, it would not get anyone literally tossed into a
> loony bin. Why, Roman Catholics even believe this about all the _ex
> cathedra_ pronouncements of the Pope, not just what is in the Bible!
> If we went around rounding them all up and putting them in the loony
> bin, what would have become of the First Amendment?
>
> John Savard
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is
that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
their
prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery.
Yet
this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays
all
the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in
all history."
-- Robert Heinlein
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 12:15 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> "The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is
> that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
> wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
> their
> prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery.
> Yet
> this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays
> all
> the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in
> all history."
> -- Robert Heinlein
>
Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
Anthony.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:45:42
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
<anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr > wrote:
>Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
You might also appreciate this bit of wisdom from Richard Feynman:
"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this
tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and
all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions
and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God
can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view
that religion has.
"The stage is too big for the drama."
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 01:56:51
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
> <anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
>
>
> You might also appreciate this bit of wisdom from Richard Feynman:
>
> "It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this
> tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and
> all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions
> and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God
> can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view
> that religion has.
>
> "The stage is too big for the drama."
Thanks for this one as well which is equally good (yeap, I saved it).
The only good purpose that religion may have to offer is that it
possibly keeps the masses from anarchy. If everyone thought that God was
not watching their every move etc, it would be too easy to do whatever
everyone pleased (ie. anarchy) with a "hell there is nothing to pay when
I am gone from this world and onto the (supposedly) next one" attitude.
Anthony.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 12:15:32
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007 08:19:52 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
.
> >Scripture is
> >inerrant on all matters of faith and morals...
.
> Statements like that are likely to get you tossed in the same loony bin
> as Gerald.
.
I suggest that you continue reading my post, more carefully. I trust
that it will emerge that I was not advancing a sincere statement of my
own beliefs, concerning either religion or the Copernican heliocentric
theory, but was engaging in satiric activity in that post.
I was trying to point out that from the world-view of a (relatively)
liberal churchman of the time when the forces of the Inquisition were
pitted against this heliocentric notion, while the empirical viewpoint
that led from Copernicus and Kepler to Newton might be acceptable as
not genuinely heretical, a heliocentric viewpoint that is non-
empirical, as G. Kelleher declares his view to be, _would_ be
anathema.
Incidentally, I should *hope* that, while a statement like "Scripture
is inerrant on all matters of faith and morals" might get a person
killfiled as a bore, it would not get anyone literally tossed into a
loony bin. Why, Roman Catholics even believe this about all the _ex
cathedra_ pronouncements of the Pope, not just what is in the Bible!
If we went around rounding them all up and putting them in the loony
bin, what would have become of the First Amendment?
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 19:56:42
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On 28 Apr 2007 12:15:32 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
>Incidentally, I should *hope* that, while a statement like "Scripture
>is inerrant on all matters of faith and morals" might get a person
>killfiled as a bore, it would not get anyone literally tossed into a
>loony bin. Why, Roman Catholics even believe this about all the _ex
>cathedra_ pronouncements of the Pope, not just what is in the Bible!
>If we went around rounding them all up and putting them in the loony
>bin, what would have become of the First Amendment?
The First Amendment has never prohibited the confinement of people
dangerous to themselves or others. So while I'd have no moral objection
to locking away all the Roman Catholics (and quite a few others as
well), I recognize the enormous practical difficulties involved. We just
have to hope that the human race undergoes some significant
philosophical maturation before we destroy ourselves. I'm not
optimistic, though.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 08:19:52
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The correlation which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation at
> precisely 24 hours for each 360 degree cycle never requires a
> reference to the stellar background much less astrological geometry
> which uses the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes
> 04 seconds.
.
I'm not sure why it is desirable to avoid a reference to the stellar
background.
> The Equation of Time is a consequence of the human
> recognition from observed data that the total length of the natural
> cycle is unequal,it is unequal; because of the change of the solar
> radiation/orbital shadow boundary in accordance with Keplerian orbital
> motion and geometry.
Yes, that is quite true: but the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second rotation
of the Earth which you so deprecate is an intrinsic *part* of that
Keplerian orbital motion and geometry.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if you are trying to tell us that lusting
after inertial frames is evil, and so we shoud view the Equation of
Time as superimposed on Keplerian motion as a substitute for a
perfectly circular orbit.
> In short,the people who are supposed to know more about climatology
> and their astronomical origins are people like yourself who are
> willing to make up whatever story you need to support idiotic 17th
> century agendas.
Speaking of 17th century agendas...
It has not escaped our notice that certain students of the heavens,
among them Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, have proposed that rather
than the Earth being the fixed center of the cosmos, around which the
heavenly bodies move in their courses, that rather the Sun and the
vault of the heavens in which the stars repose are fixed, and the
Earth moves around the Sun.
This bold idea has aroused much criticism as being contrary both to
every-day experience and to Scripture.
However, while this bold hypothesis should still be regarded as
unproven, it is also a mistake to regard it as heretical. Scripture is
inerrant on all matters of faith and morals, but it is expressed in
the human language of the time. Even should the heliocentric theory
come to be generally accepted among men of learning at some distant
date in the future, people would still, in ordinary conversation,
speak of the Sun rising and setting, rather than the Earth turning its
face to the Sun at the point on which one stands.
Thus, if the empirical observation of Nature forces us, reluctantly,
to accept that the heliocentric theory represents the actual system of
the cosmos, what would be happening in that event is that our human
understanding of Scripture would be amended by observation of God's
creation. The heavens, like Scripture, are of God, and thus neither
the heavens nor Scripture are to be rejected.
But as Scripture does record that Joshua told the Sun, and not the
Earth, to stand still, we can accept no lesser authority than God's
own creation for overturning the sense of Scripture, even if this
might be only its apparent sense, or if it concerns a matter
inessential to salvation.
Thus, what we may confidently abjure as at least erroneous, if not
also heretical, would be any viewpoint which advances the heliocentric
view not as a necessary empirical consequence of observation, which is
imposed on us by God through His Creation, but one which casts the
system of the cosmos as an aesthetic choice subject to the will of
man.
Scripture, when properly understood, is in complete harmony with
nature, as both are creations of the Most High God. Scripture is meant
to address that in which we are largely left uninstructed by nature,
to guide the human will into conformity with the love of God and the
love of one's fellow man. Thus, in the realm of matters that are
determined by human choice, rather than defined in nature, Scripture
reigns supreme and unchallenged.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 15:46:56
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On 28 Apr 2007 08:19:52 -0700, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
>Scripture is
>inerrant on all matters of faith and morals...
Statements like that are likely to get you tossed in the same loony bin
as Gerald. Hopefully you mean that there is some collection of writings
that you personally consider inerrant in defining your own concept of
faith and morality. Outside of yourself, of course, there are no
absolutes for morality.
At the least, when you use terms like "scripture", "god", etc you should
qualify them. There are millions of pages of scripture produced by the
believers in hundreds or thousands of gods. At least let us know which
particular myths you are referring to.
More to the point, what result can come from pitting mythology against
pseudoscience?
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 08:02:19
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 12:16 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:08 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That is what is so dynamic about the original Copernican insight on
> > planetary motion and why people like Kepler and Galileo recognised
> > it.A participator sees the faster Earth overtake the slower forward
> > moving outer planets -
>
> >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> > A commentator does not and makes a mess of it -
>
> > "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
>
> How does a different point of view, from someone who was several times
> more insightful than you, who accomplished more than you ever have a
> hope of doing, "make a mess of it?"
Contemporarty time lapse footage of the motions of Jupiter and Saturn
from an orbitally moving Earth cuts that idiot's statement to pieces -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
I am not in competition with a person who has a false perspective of
retrogrades and their resolution and managed to make a mess of careful
reasoning of the pre-heliocentric and Copernican astronomers.The time
lapse footage above has the final say in who is correct and who is not
and I assure you I am correct.
The fact is, Newton is imagining
> seeing the exact same phemonema, from a different point of view. It
> does not negate anything.
The fact is that once you recognise how the Earth's orbital motion
resolves the observed behavior of the other planets it leaves axial
rotation to explain the daily cycle.It is then only a short step to
overlaying the human devised Equation of Time creation on the daily
cycle as a correlation which clocks and terrestrial longitudes mesh as
an equivalency of 24 hours/360 degrees.
He is simply observing the heleocentric
> system from the center. But this is beyond your imagination, as is
> the posibility that nearly all of us fully comprehend the works of his
> predecessors and understand why he (and we) have moved on from there.
>
Retrogrades are plotted positions against the stellar background and
their resolution is made directly by orbital comparisons between a
moving Earth and the observed planet.If you do not want to hear it
from me then Kepler should be astronomically authorative enough for
you -
"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards
thecentre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time
the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times "
Astronomia Nova 1609 KEPLER
http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf
He is refering to the diagram on page 85.
That fool Newton thought the Earth was the center and replacing it
with the Sun makes tyhe loops go away hence the idiotic Newtonian
reasoning -
"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
> No damage was done. The tragedy - the real tragedy - is that you can
> not see how a heleocentric worldview looks from the sun.
>
> Pathetic.
>
> Austin
I know how you think from top to bottom and the damage
done,information lost ,careful observations ruined,achievements
debased and all the other counter-productive elements in destroying
the great Western recognition of the orbital and axial cycles.
" In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry
of the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the
motion of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other
way. For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the
forward and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and
smaller than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in
Mercury. This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
Mercury...All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which lies
in the motion of the Earth.." Copernicus
Every single person here has the time lapse footage of Jupiter and
Saturn before them to affirm the view that the Earth moves to explain
the motions of those planets.It is now one of the easiest insights to
appreciate yet lesser minds still retain a corrupt view of Newton
which still dominates this dark age of astronomy.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 07:41:24
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 11:36 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Radiating from the central insight is the great Western timekeeping
> > adaption that axial rotation causes the daily cycle,part human devised
> > and partly a result of accurate recognition of the cycles,its freedom
> > is that you are not chained to celestial sphere/constellational
> > geometry.
>
> .
> Ah. So you don't have to have the whole Universe revolve around the
> Sun once a year.
The correlation which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation at
precisely 24 hours for each 360 degree cycle never requires a
reference to the stellar background much less astrological geometry
which uses the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds.You actually have to have a diseased mind to justify the
Earth's axial and orbital motions using a 1461 day calendrical cycle
split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
The point seems to go right over your heads,either that of there is a
perverse satisfaction in adhering to constellational
geometry,something that is not pre-heliocentric but actually sub-
geocentric.
You just need to have it wiggle back and forth a
> little, enough to cancel out the Equation of Time, so that the Earth
> turns to face the Center of the Universe regularly once every 24
> hours, while the average 23 hour 56 minute 4 second rotation, while
> isochronous with respect to the wiggling stars, is irregular with
> respect to the real rest frame of the Universe.
>
Climatology and understanding climate change requires a modification
to the Copernican reason for the seasons based on a pseudo-dynamic of
variable axial tilt.The Equation of Time is a consequence of the human
recognition from observed data that the total length of the natural
cycle is unequal,it is unequal; because of the change of the solar
radiation/orbital shadow boundary in accordance with Keplerian orbital
motion and geometry.
In short,the people who are supposed to know more about climatology
and their astronomical origins are people like yourself who are
willing to make up whatever story you need to support idiotic 17th
century agendas.The value of 24 hours/360 degrees is a secondary
affirmation of the Copernican reasoning for orbital motion and is easy
to modify the Copernican reasoning from that standpoint.You can do
nothing with the false celestial sphere justification.
> The superior aesthetic merits of such a scheme escape me, but clearly
> Occam's razor has corrupted my taste.
>
> John Savard
You are dangerous people from many points of view,even when
astrophotography is a valuable facet of astronomy,the exercise in
magnification is not the only thing and rots astronomy when the Ra/Dec
observational convenience is mistaken for a way to justify the Earth's
motions.
You do not mock me but you mock yourselves.It still leaves me to find
individuals who are capable of recognising a serious situation that is
rotting Western civilisation from the inside.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 04:16:08
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 5:08 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> That is what is so dynamic about the original Copernican insight on
> planetary motion and why people like Kepler and Galileo recognised
> it.A participator sees the faster Earth overtake the slower forward
> moving outer planets -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> A commentator does not and makes a mess of it -
>
> "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
How does a different point of view, from someone who was several times
more insightful than you, who accomplished more than you ever have a
hope of doing, "make a mess of it?" The fact is, Newton is imagining
seeing the exact same phemonema, from a different point of view. It
does not negate anything. He is simply observing the heleocentric
system from the center. But this is beyond your imagination, as is
the posibility that nearly all of us fully comprehend the works of his
predecessors and understand why he (and we) have moved on from there.
No damage was done. The tragedy - the real tragedy - is that you can
not see how a heleocentric worldview looks from the sun.
Pathetic.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 03:36:18
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Radiating from the central insight is the great Western timekeeping
> adaption that axial rotation causes the daily cycle,part human devised
> and partly a result of accurate recognition of the cycles,its freedom
> is that you are not chained to celestial sphere/constellational
> geometry.
.
Ah. So you don't have to have the whole Universe revolve around the
Sun once a year. You just need to have it wiggle back and forth a
little, enough to cancel out the Equation of Time, so that the Earth
turns to face the Center of the Universe regularly once every 24
hours, while the average 23 hour 56 minute 4 second rotation, while
isochronous with respect to the wiggling stars, is irregular with
respect to the real rest frame of the Universe.
The superior aesthetic merits of such a scheme escape me, but clearly
Occam's razor has corrupted my taste.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:41:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 30, 8:24 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The concerns of Copernicus was not Church opposition but rather his
> > work would be destroyed by those unable to handle the precepts
> > involved.His worse fears have come to pass -
>
> > "...And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose,
> > because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which
> > would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very
> > beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be
> > ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in
> > any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative;..." Copernicus
>
> Sounds like he understood 21st century Western journalism!
>
> Austin
The next part entirely reflects your condition -
....or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of
philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of
their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as
drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn
which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and
unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon
completely the work which I had undertaken." Copernicus
What has indeed happened to people !,what great insights wither in
less careful hands and for what !.That people can remain silent
through a great injustice,that they are incapable of discerning,even
with 21st century imaging,what the great astronomers knew by instinct.
You all come to sci.astro.amateur and give yourselves the title of
'astronomer' by virtue of optics but you rob that dicipline which is
one of the highest in human endeavor of its dignity and dilute it to
an exercise in magnification.All drones use the excuse of following
after a fashion,holocausts are built by such people and no less than
this one accomplished at the expense of the great Western achievements
in astronomy and learning.What has happened to people and their love
of all that is good and true for it certainly does not live here.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 12:24:56
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> The concerns of Copernicus was not Church opposition but rather his
> work would be destroyed by those unable to handle the precepts
> involved.His worse fears have come to pass -
>
> "...And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose,
> because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which
> would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very
> beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be
> ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in
> any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative;..." Copernicus
Sounds like he understood 21st century Western journalism!
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 10:40:41
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 30, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 9:18 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2007 05:25:36 -0700, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >I find the very concept of an astronomer trying to make authoritarian
> > >comments on religion as unsound as a priest trying to make
> > >authoritarian comments on astronomy.
>
> > Feynman's comment didn't involve the discussion of any particular
> > religious doctrine (which would require specific knowledge), but the
> > rather obvious observation that virtually every religion puts Man at the
> > center of things and has little or nothing to say about the rest of the
> > Universe.
>
> Except that this is wrong. There have been some adherents to certain
> religions who have done this, but most religions put God at the center
> of the universe, at least figuratively speaking. Those who think
> otherwise have failed to dig below the very surface of almost any
> major religion.
>
> It's similar to going to a star party and coming away thinking
> "astronomy is all about constellations." Well, no, that's a part of
> it, but a very small part in this day and age.
>
> Austin
On Apr 29, 1:25 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I find the very concept of an astronomer trying to make authoritarian
> comments on religion as unsound as a priest trying to make
> authoritarian comments on astronomy.
>
> Austin
The same intutive intelligence which is central to astronomers is
present in those of faith.The reason that you cannot handle basic
astronomical insights is that you have had the intutive intelligence
beaten out of you through indoctrination.No doubt the idea that
Copernicus was a priest would hardly alter minds brought up to believe
Christian opposition to heliocentric reasoning much less that
Copernicus wrote to the pope knowing that he would have a working
knowledge of the ins and outs of the change between Ptolemaic
astronomy and the dramatic view based on axial and orbital motions.
The concerns of Copernicus was not Church opposition but rather his
work would be destroyed by those unable to handle the precepts
involved.His worse fears have come to pass -
"Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish
the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to
follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to
transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in
writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to
Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose,
because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which
would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very
beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be
ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in
any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated
to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and
example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the
same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed
these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account
of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me
to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken." Copernicus
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
It was always the absence of astronomers that mattered rather than the
presence of the empirical drones and their mantras yet it can all be
undone beginining with a simple sequence of images of the Earth
overtaking the slower moving planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 06:49:00
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
AustinMN wrote:
> On Apr 29, 9:18 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
.
> > Feynman's comment didn't involve the discussion of any particular
> > religious doctrine (which would require specific knowledge), but the
> > rather obvious observation that virtually every religion puts Man at the
> > center of things and has little or nothing to say about the rest of the
> > Universe.
.
> Except that this is wrong. There have been some adherents to certain
> religions who have done this, but most religions put God at the center
> of the universe, at least figuratively speaking. Those who think
> otherwise have failed to dig below the very surface of almost any
> major religion.
.
It certainly is true that religions generally put God before Man! But
while your comment is correct, I don't think it is properly connecting
to the previous poster's objection.
Rather, it is because while religion may take a moment or two to drag
out the majesty and immensity of the Universe in order to show how big
and powerful God is, it spends far more time on the doings of human
beings, such as in instructing them in ethical behavior.
While I can think of many things to object to in revealed religion,
this, however, I cannot categorize as one of its faults. Somehow, I
think it entirely fitting and proper that God should care more about a
neglected child than a star which departs the Main Sequence without
any inhabited planets to disturb.
People, unlike things, even very big things like nebulae, can feel
what is done to them. Hence, it is fitting both for gods and men that
they should concern themselves more with people than with nebulae.
A God who judges men by the love in their hearts, and not the size of
their bank accounts, will also not count a man as less important than
a star simply because he is less massive.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 06:27:18
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 29, 9:18 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2007 05:25:36 -0700, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I find the very concept of an astronomer trying to make authoritarian
> >comments on religion as unsound as a priest trying to make
> >authoritarian comments on astronomy.
>
> Feynman's comment didn't involve the discussion of any particular
> religious doctrine (which would require specific knowledge), but the
> rather obvious observation that virtually every religion puts Man at the
> center of things and has little or nothing to say about the rest of the
> Universe.
Except that this is wrong. There have been some adherents to certain
religions who have done this, but most religions put God at the center
of the universe, at least figuratively speaking. Those who think
otherwise have failed to dig below the very surface of almost any
major religion.
It's similar to going to a star party and coming away thinking
"astronomy is all about constellations." Well, no, that's a part of
it, but a very small part in this day and age.
Austin
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 14:11:04
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On 30 Apr 2007 06:27:18 -0700, AustinMN <tacooper260@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Except that this is wrong. There have been some adherents to certain
>religions who have done this, but most religions put God at the center
>of the universe, at least figuratively speaking. Those who think
>otherwise have failed to dig below the very surface of almost any
>major religion.
God, man, all the same. My point was simply that Feynman's observation
can't be taken as the sort of thing that requires formal education in
divinity to make, which seemed to be your assertion.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 03:30:43
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I can go some distance in dealing
> with the way empiricisn imposed terrestrial ballistics on planetary
> motion via the Ra/Dec astrological geometry and then call it
> 'universal laws' of physics,gravity,motion but laws were always for
> the feebleminded and turn astronomy from an intellectual/intuitive
> fountain into a contrived cistern.
.
> The rare individual who can live with the intellectual
> and intutive balance goes on to enjoy terrestrial and celestial
> phenomena through the same faculty which enjoys all creative works
> including those of men in music.art,literature and anything good in
> humanity.Without that balance,which affirms and rejects proposals
> based on physical considerations, concepts and precepts go astray and
> eventually wind up as conceptual monsters we see today.
.
> The 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value is neither intutive or
> intellectual.
.
Imposing "terrestrial ballistics on planetary motion" seems to work;
Voyager's encounter with Neptune comes to mind. You have indeed
somewhat further clarified what it is with which you are taking issue,
but as aesthetic considerations are difficult to define precisely, I
do not know what basis could be used to set bounds to empiricism.
Had you an objection to the sidereal day which could be stated in
empirical terms, I could point out your specific conceptual error. I
am still not able to visualize the precise nature of the heliocentric,
but pre-Newtonian, concept of the Solar System which you would find
aesthetic, or even how one could be both heliocentric and save the
phenomena without a 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second rotation of the
Earth, but since the dispute is apparently on an aesthetic and not an
empirical basis, I would be less well-equipped to debate on such
territory in any case.
If one wishes to consult the wisdom of the ancients, in fact, there is
the phrase _De gustibus non disputandum_ (There's no accounting for
taste) that may be germane.
John Savard
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 14:13:45
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
John, he is a poor sick person who clearly suffers from a serious mental
illness. Leave him be.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 00:32:44
From: Dolly Swalerd
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:c3a0d$4633aaf0$4212a552$18330@TULAROSA.NET...
> John, he is a poor sick person who clearly suffers from a serious mental
> illness. Leave him be.
No no no...offer him your experience with illness.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 03:08:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 9:41 am, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <1177717599.786197.139...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> >> At stake is not just the great Western heliocentric astronomical
> >> tradition but more importantly it is about human achievement,how it
> >> really is and how it can be perverted for contrived nonsense such as
> >> Newtonian empiricism.It all hinges on that 24 hour/360 degree
> >> correlation
> >.
> > What is it that is so bad about empiricism?
>
> > John Savard
>
> It reduces your personal freedom, since it imposes limits on your
> possible worldviews.... right? :-)
>
It leaves you as a commentator(and a poor one at that) instead of a
participator in the great terrestrial/celestial cycles which make
existence possible.
That is what is so dynamic about the original Copernican insight on
planetary motion and why people like Kepler and Galileo recognised
it.A participator sees the faster Earth overtake the slower forward
moving outer planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
A commentator does not and makes a mess of it -
"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
Radiating from the central insight is the great Western timekeeping
adaption that axial rotation causes the daily cycle,part human devised
and partly a result of accurate recognition of the cycles,its freedom
is that you are not chained to celestial sphere/constellational
geometry.
> Also, obtaining empirical measurements can be a lot of hard work.
> If you don't have to do that, you can perhaps live a lazier and
> more comfortable life. At least in the short run - in the long run
> you may run into trouble because you didn't bother digging up enough
> facts before making an important decision.
>
Obtaining observations was a lot of hard work and attaching the word
'empirical' to it does not make it any more or less accurate than what
it is.Astronomers had the plotted positions of Jupiter and Saturn for
a millenia before Copernicus resolved why the planets appeared to
stop,go backwards and then go forwards against the stellar background
-
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
With time lapse footage now availible, the conclusion is now a cinch
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
You turn out to be small,having no real part in the great effort by
pre-heliocentric astronomers to plot the positions of the planets nor
in the great conclusions of astronomers from Copernicus to the point
where celestial sphere geometry was introduced into heliocentric
thinking,humanity lost its ability to affirm the astronomical cycles
as participators in those cycles.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 02:53:10
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 12:46 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > At stake is not just the great Western heliocentric astronomical
> > tradition but more importantly it is about human achievement,how it
> > really is and how it can be perverted for contrived nonsense such as
> > Newtonian empiricism.It all hinges on that 24 hour/360 degree
> > correlation
>
> .
> What is it that is so bad about empiricism?
>
> John Savard
I have in intention in launching a diatribe against the empirical
cult,as far as I am concerned it has already revealed itself from
behind the genuine human achievements in astronomy or rather can no
longer do any more damage in the directionless way it approaches
terrestrial and celestial phenomena.I can go some distance in dealing
with the way empiricisn imposed terrestrial ballistics on planetary
motion via the Ra/Dec astrological geometry and then call it
'universal laws' of physics,gravity,motion but laws were always for
the feebleminded and turn astronomy from an intellectual/intuitive
fountain into a contrived cistern.
The antidote for empricism, which amounts to a loss of balance between
intellectual and intutive intelligence ,can be found in the words of
Pascal but as empiricists impose and define 'intutive' to their own
liking or rather perceive it as a guesswork faculty the great
expression of Pascal will be diluted to the point of being
ineffective .The rare individual who can live with the intellectual
and intutive balance goes on to enjoy terrestrial and celestial
phenomena through the same faculty which enjoys all creative works
including those of men in music.art,literature and anything good in
humanity.Without that balance,which affirms and rejects proposals
based on physical considerations, concepts and precepts go astray and
eventually wind up as conceptual monsters we see today.
The intutive faculty which appreciates how the pre-heliocentric 24
hour day principles devised by men were adapted to terrestrial
longitudes as a 24 hour /360 degree equivalency or 15 degrees per hour
borrow partly from intuition and partly from the intellect.The
intutive faculty recognises how the average 24 hour day transfers to
'constant' axial rotation which the intellect renders into practical
and pragmatic ends such as how clocks keep in sync with axial
rotation.The 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value is neither intutive or
intellectual.
Pascal is more akin to the mathematical mind than the astronomical
mind.especially in the way it weighs how observations match
conclusions however there is no one-size-fits-all rule as everybody
has different strengths and weaknesses. Empiricism attempts to force
an individual ,and many are indeed willing to be forced,into a
convenient rut and while it has the advantage of consensus it shades
off into indoictrination and mantras.
Ultimately the 23 hours 56 minutes 04 second justification used for
the Earth's axial and orbital motions is so intellectually and
intutively bankrupt that it may now only represent a convenient way to
highlight a collapse of a civilisation through exploitation of
delicate and intricate astronomical principles by people who are not
sincere.
"The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.--In
the one, the principles are palpable, but removed from ordinary use;
so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that
direction: but if one turns it thither ever so little, one sees the
principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who
reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible
they should escape notice.
But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles.
All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight,
for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and
intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to
the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.
Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a
single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with
propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is
through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not
accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and
disheartened.
But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical.
Mathematicians who are only mathematicians have exact minds, provided
all things are explained to them by means of definitions and axioms;
otherwise they are inaccurate and insufferable, for they are only
right when the principles are quite clear.
And men of intuition who are only intuitive cannot have the patience
to reach to first principles of things speculative and conceptual,
which they have never seen in the world and which are altogether out
of the common." Pascal
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:46:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> At stake is not just the great Western heliocentric astronomical
> tradition but more importantly it is about human achievement,how it
> really is and how it can be perverted for contrived nonsense such as
> Newtonian empiricism.It all hinges on that 24 hour/360 degree
> correlation
.
What is it that is so bad about empiricism?
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 08:41:50
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
In article <1177717599.786197.139050@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>> At stake is not just the great Western heliocentric astronomical
>> tradition but more importantly it is about human achievement,how it
>> really is and how it can be perverted for contrived nonsense such as
>> Newtonian empiricism.It all hinges on that 24 hour/360 degree
>> correlation
>.
> What is it that is so bad about empiricism?
>
> John Savard
It reduces your personal freedom, since it imposes limits on your
possible worldviews.... right? :-)
Also, obtaining empirical measurements can be a lot of hard work.
If you don't have to do that, you can perhaps live a lazier and
more comfortable life. At least in the short run - in the long run
you may run into trouble because you didn't bother digging up enough
facts before making an important decision.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 04:46:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 29, 5:19 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > How's the analemma going at the Equator Tony ?,did you discover that
> > it does not exist except for astrophotographers and theorists who know
> > no better.
>
> > Tell me all about the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt and how it
> > affects the variations in the total length of the daily cycle through
> > which the Equation of Time is applied.
>
> .
> The world's axial tilt is not postulated to vary at all. While an
> analemma is often drawn on a globe, the place where it belongs is on a
> sundial, so that its vertical dimension reflects the change in the
> lengths of shadows due to the Earth's fixed axial tilt. It has nothing
> to do with latitude, and the habit of drawing analemmas on globes can
> be confusing for that reason.
>
> John Savard
The cause of hemispherical weather patterns,otherwise known as the
seasons,is due to the change in the solar radiation/orbital shadow
boundary due to the Earth's orbital motion.
The pseudo-dynamic of variable inclination used to explain the seasons
is unsatisdfactory and leads to an annual 23 1/2 degree annual
precession -
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/07reasons-for-seasons-flashlight.gif
The analemma id just a late 17thg century fudge which effectively
tries to seperate the principles which adapt the Equation of Time
system to the principle that axial rotation is responsible for the
daily cycle and subsequently the pragmatic correlation which keeps
clocks in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours
through 360 degrees.
The modification to Chapter 11 of De Revolutionibus where Copernicus
outlines his reasons for the seasons based on variable inclination far
exceeds the Keplerian modification and refinement of orbital
geometries,considering climatologuical studies are relient on an
accurate treatment of the Earth's motions ,the enormous modification
required is not an overstatement nor an exaggeration.
In short,it is not about deconstructing the late 17th century
mutations but clearing the ground for real modifications.As the
fundamental astronomical cycle is the axial rotational cycle,nothing
can be accomplished by adhering to sub-geocentric celestial sphere
concepts that were created by Flamsteed for determining longitude in
the absence of accurate clocks.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 09:19:19
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> How's the analemma going at the Equator Tony ?,did you discover that
> it does not exist except for astrophotographers and theorists who know
> no better.
>
> Tell me all about the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt and how it
> affects the variations in the total length of the daily cycle through
> which the Equation of Time is applied.
.
The world's axial tilt is not postulated to vary at all. While an
analemma is often drawn on a globe, the place where it belongs is on a
sundial, so that its vertical dimension reflects the change in the
lengths of shadows due to the Earth's fixed axial tilt. It has nothing
to do with latitude, and the habit of drawing analemmas on globes can
be confusing for that reason.
John Savard
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 07:33:18
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
How's the analemma going at the Equator Tony ?,did you discover that
it does not exist except for astrophotographers and theorists who know
no better.
Tell me all about the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt and how it
affects the variations in the total length of the daily cycle through
which the Equation of Time is applied.
Maybe when people discover that the Solar radiation/orbital shadow
boundaries alters due to orbital motion that humanity would not have
to suffer the empirical explanation based on a 23 and a half degree
axial precession -
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/07reasons-for-seasons-flashlight.gif
You are going to have a helluva job trying to line the geographical
axis with the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary at the
Equinoxes by using variable axial tilt.Considering that climate
change is top priority at the moment ,I hope humanity can survive the
abysmal and counter-productive empirical thinking never mind human
influences on climate.
On Apr 28, 11:56 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
> > <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
>
> >>Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
>
> > You might also appreciate this bit of wisdom from Richard Feynman:
>
> > "It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this
> > tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and
> > all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions
> > and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God
> > can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view
> > that religion has.
>
> > "The stage is too big for the drama."
>
> Thanks for this one as well which is equally good (yeap, I saved it).
>
> The only good purpose that religion may have to offer is that it
> possibly keeps the masses from anarchy. If everyone thought that God was
> not watching their every move etc, it would be too easy to do whatever
> everyone pleased (ie. anarchy) with a "hell there is nothing to pay when
> I am gone from this world and onto the (supposedly) next one" attitude.
>
> Anthony.
>
>
>
>
>
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> >http://www.cloudbait.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 07:22:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 10:45 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
>
> <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
> >Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
>
> You might also appreciate this bit of wisdom from Richard Feynman:
>
The same guy who has Roemer's 1676 Mora Luminis insight dependent on
Newton's 1679 Principia -
"were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the earth and
behind schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance. Mr.
Roemer [Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish astronomer], having confidence
in the Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it
takes light some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the
earth, and what we are looking at when we see the moons is not how
they are now but how they were the time ago it took light to get here.
When Jupiter is near us it takes less time for the light to come, and
when Jupiter is farther from us it takes longer time, so Roemer had to
correct the observations for the differences in time and by the fact
that they were this much early or that much late." Character of
Physical Law. Feymann.
Having confidence indeed !,the Roemerian insight is based on orbital
comparisons between Earth and Jupiter just as the Keplerian orbital
modification and refinement is based on orbital comparisons between
Earth and Mars.
What Feymann's 'wisdom' is,it has no historical basis much less an
astronomical one.
You should listen to the wisdom of O'Conell and keep your mouth shut
least you make yourselves sound more ridiculous then you already are.I
regret not finding people with courage who can appreciate the basics
of heliocentric reasoning from its pre-heliocentric roots but it is
never too late.
> "It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this
> tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and
> all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions
> and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God
> can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view
> that religion has.
>
> "The stage is too big for the drama."
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 06:50:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 29, 1:25 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:45 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
>
> > <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
> > >Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
>
> > You might also appreciate this bit of wisdom from Richard Feynman:
>
> > "It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this
> > tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and
> > all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions
> > and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God
> > can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view
> > that religion has.
>
> > "The stage is too big for the drama."
>
> I find the very concept of an astronomer trying to make authoritarian
> comments on religion as unsound as a priest trying to make
> authoritarian comments on astronomy.
>
> Austin
Funny,funny,funny !.
Look son,Copernicus was a priest.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 05:25:36
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 28, 4:45 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:35:24 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
>
> <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
> >Thanks for the quote! I saved it.
>
> You might also appreciate this bit of wisdom from Richard Feynman:
>
> "It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this
> tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and
> all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions
> and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God
> can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view
> that religion has.
>
> "The stage is too big for the drama."
I find the very concept of an astronomer trying to make authoritarian
comments on religion as unsound as a priest trying to make
authoritarian comments on astronomy.
Austin
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:18:39
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On 29 Apr 2007 05:25:36 -0700, AustinMN <tacooper260@hotmail.com > wrote:
>I find the very concept of an astronomer trying to make authoritarian
>comments on religion as unsound as a priest trying to make
>authoritarian comments on astronomy.
Feynman's comment didn't involve the discussion of any particular
religious doctrine (which would require specific knowledge), but the
rather obvious observation that virtually every religion puts Man at the
center of things and has little or nothing to say about the rest of the
Universe.
You hardly need to be trained as a priest to point this out.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 11:00:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 27, 12:18 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > I sympathise with your dilemma,it must be terrible to find yourself in
> > the same position as the creationists who have basic problems with the
> > 24 hour day or rather set their agendas by false precepts,in your
> > case,the idea that clocks keep pace with axial rotation in 23 hours 56
> > minutes 04 seconds.
>
> I don't believe that at all! You are quite right that this would be
> wrong, utterly.
>
It is wrong utterly so go ahead and change it.
> Clocks keep pace with the average 24 hour day, which is a consequence
> of the difference between the Earth's average rotation (giving a 23
> hour and 56 minute and 4.1 second period of rotation) and the Earth's
> revolution around the Sun (a 1 year period of revolution), giving a 24
> hour synodic period - the period between the times the Earth faces the
> Sun, which is what counts in our daily lives.
>
The average 24 hour day is actually a human devised cycle with a
definite pace hence equable hours,minutes and seconds.The genius of
applying the Equation of Time system to terrestrial longitudes as a 4
minute clock time for each degree of longitudinal seperation making 24
hours/360 degrees is that no external reference is required,it is
merely the average 24 hour day transfered to the idea of axial
rotation as constant and a the cause of the daily cycle.
That incredibly powerful insight remains the basis for the development
of accurate clocks to determine longitude and a way to affirm the
Copernican heliocentric insights for axial and orbital motions.
> But just because the 24 hour day is what is most important to us in
> our daily lives doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a *derived
> consequence* of the sidereal rotation which is primary -
>
It is more important to find people who have a healthy appreciation of
what goes into the formation of the 24 hour day and from there to its
application to terrestrial longitudes as a correlation than to go
through the ins and outs of the late 17th century maneuvering that
vandalised the core 24 hour/360 degree principles.
At stake is not just the great Western heliocentric astronomical
tradition but more importantly it is about human achievement,how it
really is and how it can be perverted for contrived nonsense such as
Newtonian empiricism.It all hinges on that 24 hour/360 degree
correlation
> > There is nothing remotely difficult in appreciating how the Equation
> > of Time correction which creates the average 24 hour day and keeps
> > each 24 hour day elapsing seramlessly into the next 24 hour day was
> > transfered to a heliocentric adaption where clock pace registers as 4
> > minutes for each degree of terrestrial longitude making 24 hours/360
> > degrees in total.I do not even regard that you see the point or do not
> > see the point ,not even the conceptual monsters which are created by a
> > false alternative correlation,the priority of recognising the 24 hour/
> > 360 degree equivalency exists as a secondary affirmation of Copernican
> > heliocentricity.
>
> The fact that there _is_ an "equation of time" means that the 24 hour
> a day is not primary, because of a little something called the
> conservation of angular momentum.
>
> John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:35:09
From: Dionysus
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
I have absolutely no faith in the human race with collossal ASSHOLES like
oriel running around. AKA Kelleher or whatever.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:13:12
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Dionysus wrote:
> I have absolutely no faith in the human race with collossal ASSHOLES like
> oriel running around. AKA Kelleher or whatever.
Simple--add the jerk to your newsreader's filter list. No asshole posts,
no worries.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 04:18:21
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I sympathise with your dilemma,it must be terrible to find yourself in
> the same position as the creationists who have basic problems with the
> 24 hour day or rather set their agendas by false precepts,in your
> case,the idea that clocks keep pace with axial rotation in 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds.
I don't believe that at all! You are quite right that this would be
wrong, utterly.
Clocks keep pace with the average 24 hour day, which is a consequence
of the difference between the Earth's average rotation (giving a 23
hour and 56 minute and 4.1 second period of rotation) and the Earth's
revolution around the Sun (a 1 year period of revolution), giving a 24
hour synodic period - the period between the times the Earth faces the
Sun, which is what counts in our daily lives.
But just because the 24 hour day is what is most important to us in
our daily lives doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a *derived
consequence* of the sidereal rotation which is primary -
> There is nothing remotely difficult in appreciating how the Equation
> of Time correction which creates the average 24 hour day and keeps
> each 24 hour day elapsing seramlessly into the next 24 hour day was
> transfered to a heliocentric adaption where clock pace registers as 4
> minutes for each degree of terrestrial longitude making 24 hours/360
> degrees in total.I do not even regard that you see the point or do not
> see the point ,not even the conceptual monsters which are created by a
> false alternative correlation,the priority of recognising the 24 hour/
> 360 degree equivalency exists as a secondary affirmation of Copernican
> heliocentricity.
The fact that there _is_ an "equation of time" means that the 24 hour
a day is not primary, because of a little something called the
conservation of angular momentum.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 03:32:03
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 27, 1:29 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > In this respect it is not a matter of a fight to prove the
> > institutions you represent wrong but rather a struggle to find
> > astronomers who can become familiar with the ins and outs of the
> > material and why it is important to get things straight again.So far
> > the results have not been satisfactory.
>
> .
> I am trying very hard to see your point, but it seems to me that "the
> institutions I respect" have got it right, and, in fact, the matter is
> a simple one to understand, and I believe I understand it perfectly.
>
I sympathise with your dilemma,it must be terrible to find yourself in
the same position as the creationists who have basic problems with the
24 hour day or rather set their agendas by false precepts,in your
case,the idea that clocks keep pace with axial rotation in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds.
There is nothing remotely difficult in appreciating how the Equation
of Time correction which creates the average 24 hour day and keeps
each 24 hour day elapsing seramlessly into the next 24 hour day was
transfered to a heliocentric adaption where clock pace registers as 4
minutes for each degree of terrestrial longitude making 24 hours/360
degrees in total.I do not even regard that you see the point or do not
see the point ,not even the conceptual monsters which are created by a
false alternative correlation,the priority of recognising the 24 hour/
360 degree equivalency exists as a secondary affirmation of Copernican
heliocentricity.
> Hence, my only conclusion can be that there is some error of
> comprehension on your part, but I cannot attempt to remedy it without
> a more detailed description of your concerns in these matters.
>
> John Savard
Thank you for your concerns but I have none in return,at least for
those who have basic difficulties with human achievement in these
matters such as the Copernican isolation of the Earth's orbital motion
to explain the observed behavior of the other planets and axial
rotation as the cause of the daily cycle with the complimentary
principles which keep clocks in sync with axial rotation at 24 hours/
360 degrees.
The sanctified misunderstanding which creates a value of 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds is so intellectually and intutively feebleminded as
to be apolitical,in short,it casts the individual on a level suited to
creationist doctrines applied to natural/celestial phenomena.You may
have difficulty seeing the point of that statement but then again such
is the price of adhering to Flamsteed's false 'proof'.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 17:29:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> In this respect it is not a matter of a fight to prove the
> institutions you represent wrong but rather a struggle to find
> astronomers who can become familiar with the ins and outs of the
> material and why it is important to get things straight again.So far
> the results have not been satisfactory.
.
I am trying very hard to see your point, but it seems to me that "the
institutions I respect" have got it right, and, in fact, the matter is
a simple one to understand, and I believe I understand it perfectly.
Hence, my only conclusion can be that there is some error of
comprehension on your part, but I cannot attempt to remedy it without
a more detailed description of your concerns in these matters.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:47:39
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 26, 4:14 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:05 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> > > > the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> > > > principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> > > > natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> > > > not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> > > > to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> > > > correlation.
>
> > > Like it or not, either:
> > > 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> > > 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> > > There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> > > Which one do you believe?
>
> > > Austin
>
> > It is not a question of what I do and do not believe,the central
> > Equation of Time principles which hold together the creation of the
> > equable 24 hour day and its heliocentric adaption to
> > clocks,terrestrail geography and longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree
> > correlation dictate what works and what does not.
>
> And what works is that the earth rotates once in 23 hours, 56 minutes,
> and 4 seconds. This is slightly less than one day.
>
No one person should have to promote the principles which keep clocks
in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours in
total yet the is exactly what this amounts to.You may not understand
this but I assure you as an experience it amounts to a descent to find
the nadir of human intellectual and intutive capabilities and I have
yet to find the bottom except that it is a celestial sphere,sub-
geocentric world.
> Trying to equate 360 degrees of longitude with 360 degrees of rotation
> is nothing more than silly. Trying to correlate them is an excersie
> in mathematics and timekeeping.
>
There is no trying,the steps which eventually correlate the standard
pace of the 24 hour day ( devised by careful and brilliant people)
with terrestrial longitudes and geography progress from pre-Copernican
roots with the heliocentric adaption added through a transfer of the
'average' 24 hour day to 'constant' axial cycle.It is an
amazing,amazing achievement to appreciate how neatly the whole system
is made to work but it still awaits astronomers who have a healthy
regard for the Copernican insight on retrograde resolution through the
orbital motion of the Earth.
> It is still true, the earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours,
> or the entire universe revolves around the sun once a year. There is
> still no escape from this fact.
>
Successful people do not do this,they do not willingly accept an
explicit error in principle that see the core principles which keep
clocks in sync with axial rotation at 24 hours/360 degrees or what
amounts to the same thing,they do not justify the motions of the Earth
through the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds.
> Austin (no intelligent reply expected)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I look at all these mugshots of guys standing beside telescopes and
realise that most of humanity has the idea of an astronomer through
the exercise in magnification but there is another type of astronomer
that has not been seen in a long while. I can say this without
objection because the rarer type of astronomer can easily comprehend
the difference between an observational convenience and a working
heliocentric principle using the Earth's motions.The intutive
faculties are there in all people but exist in an undeveloped form for
most,presently it should be experienced as an uncomfortable feeling
when dealing with anti-intuitive principles such as using celestial
sphere geometry to justify axial rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds when the actual value is and always will be 24 hours/360
degrees.
Most people are astronomers insofar as their bodies are in tune with
the axial and orbital cycle of the Earth,only with the greatest
courtesy do people overide the tendency of the body to rest and be
active during the daily axial cycle or the body to adjust to the
changes in the seasons through the orbital cycle.That Copernicus
managed to isolate these two motions in explaining so much should make
for astronomers with enough intelligence to be able to recognise how
the timekeeping systems are a complimentary and convenient .
In this respect it is not a matter of a fight to prove the
institutions you represent wrong but rather a struggle to find
astronomers who can become familiar with the ins and outs of the
material and why it is important to get things straight again.So far
the results have not been satisfactory.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:33:59
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 26, 2:09 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> AustinMN wrote:
> > Like it or not, either:
> > 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> > 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> > There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> > Which one do you believe?
>
> Actually, the Earth *could* rotate _less_ than 360 degrees in 24
> hours, and the entire Universe could revolve around the Sun in a time
> shorter than a year, but, yes, I don't think the original poster
> believes in _that_ possibility.
>
> John Savard
It was Flamsteed who started referencing axial rotation and
subsequently orbital motion to external cycles by introducing
astrological geometry into heliocentric reasoning.
The Equation of Time principles which straddles pre-Copernican and
heliocentric astronomies in the creation of the 24 hour day and how
the standard pace of that day was transfered to axial rotation as a 4
minute/1 degree correlation is an amazingly stable and delicate
system ,stable insofar as the correlation remains inviolate and
delicate insofar as the way the average 24 hour day took on the mantle
of a constant axial cycle via the noon EoT correction.
The value of 24 hours/360 degrees,being a complimentary extention
which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation,is also an affirmation
of the Copernican resolution for retrogrades by isolating the Earth's
orbital motion between Venus and Mars -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Anyone who appreciates the time lapse footage above will automatically
recognise how it left axial rotation to explain the daily cycle and
from this principle,the already existing Equation of Time principles
were overlaid as a clock/axial rotation correlation.
It is a time for heroes in an era that badly needs them.Heliocentric
reasoning is almost frozen in time,it entered that state when people
building on Flamsteed's false 'proof' altered the way retrogrades are
viewed and how they are resolved -
"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 way Copernicus resolved retrogrades through using an orbitally
moving Earth to explain our motion and that of the other planets
allowed timekeeping astronomers to infer that axial rotation caused
the daily cycle whereas that information is impossible to extract from
the false Newtonian view.
Take as much time as you need to review the time lapse footage of
Jupiter and Saturn as the Earth overtakes those slower moving planets
and you may find yourself taking a more balanced view of the matter
and why it is important to promote a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 08:14:28
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 26, 5:05 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> > > the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> > > principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> > > natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> > > not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> > > to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> > > correlation.
>
> > Like it or not, either:
> > 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> > 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> > There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> > Which one do you believe?
>
> > Austin
>
> It is not a question of what I do and do not believe,the central
> Equation of Time principles which hold together the creation of the
> equable 24 hour day and its heliocentric adaption to
> clocks,terrestrail geography and longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree
> correlation dictate what works and what does not.
And what works is that the earth rotates once in 23 hours, 56 minutes,
and 4 seconds. This is slightly less than one day.
Trying to equate 360 degrees of longitude with 360 degrees of rotation
is nothing more than silly. Trying to correlate them is an excersie
in mathematics and timekeeping.
It is still true, the earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours,
or the entire universe revolves around the sun once a year. There is
still no escape from this fact.
Austin (no intelligent reply expected)
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 03:45:37
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> > the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> > principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> > natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> > not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> > to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> > correlation.
>
> Like it or not, either:
> 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> Which one do you believe?
>
> Austin
It is not a question of what I do and do not believe,the central
Equation of Time principles which hold together the creation of the
equable 24 hour day and its heliocentric adaption to
clocks,terrestrail geography and longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree
correlation dictate what works and what does not.
The idea that a 1461 day calendrical cycle split into 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days can be used to justify the daily and
annual motions of the Earth ,the conception contained in Flamsteed's
statement ,is probably the most controversial error in all astronomy -
"... 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... " John Flamsteed 1676
In two paragraphs you have the basics, the correct construction of a
timekeeping system , its adaption to the Copernican principles for
axial and orbital motion and the later error where Flamsteed jumped
the tracks and created a false 23 hours 56 minutes 04 second
correlation which introduces celestial sphere geometry into
heliocentric reasoning.
The title of this thread is apt,to understand climatology it is
neccessary to modify the Copernican reasons for the seasons using the
motions and orientations of the Earth and without a sincere effort and
discussion on the error created in the late 17th century which in turn
led to the scaffolding for other concepts,that modification cannot go
ahead.No doubt those who consider astronomy to be an exercise in
magnification,and they comprise the vast majority here,will clamor to
retain the convenience of the Ra/Dec system but the price is far too
great for the rest of humanity.
To be an astronomer is to recognise that our existence is conditioned
by the cycles of the Earth whether it is the daily,annual or longer
term cycles,to be a really good astronomer is to provide more details
as to how those cycles mesh and seperate.Tying the motions of the
Earth to constellational geometry is the most disasterous way to begin
and especially axial rotation so presently it is the absence of
astronomers rather than the presence of constellational astrologers
which proves to be the great problem.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 03:05:07
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> > the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> > principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> > natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> > not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> > to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> > correlation.
>
> Like it or not, either:
> 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> Which one do you believe?
>
> Austin
It is not a question of what I do and do not believe,the central
Equation of Time principles which hold together the creation of the
equable 24 hour day and its heliocentric adaption to
clocks,terrestrail geography and longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree
correlation dictate what works and what does not.
The idea that a 1461 day calendrical cycle split into 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days can be used to justify the daily and
annual motions of the Earth ,the conception contained in Flamsteed's
statement ,is probably the most controversial error in all astronomy -
"... 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... " John Flamsteed 1676
In two paragraphs you have the basics, the correct construction of a
timekeeping system , its adaption to the Copernican principles for
axial and orbital motion and the later error where Flamsteed jumped
the tracks and created a false 23 hours 56 minutes 04 second
correlation which introduces celestial sphere geometry into
heliocentric reasoning.
The title of this thread is apt,to understand climatology it is
neccessary to modify the Copernican reasons for the seasons using the
motions and orientations of the Earth and without a sincere effort and
discussion on the error created in the late 17th century which in turn
led to the scaffolding for other concepts,that modification cannot go
ahead.No doubt those who consider astronomy to be an exercise in
magnification,and they comprise the vast majority here,will clamor to
retain the convenience of the Ra/Dec system but the price is far too
great for the rest of humanity.
To be an astronomer is to recognise that our existence is conditioned
by the cycles of the Earth whether it is the daily,annual or longer
term cycles,to be a really good astronomer is to provide more details
as to how those cycles mesh and seperate.Tying the motions of the
Earth to constellational geometry is the most disasterous way to begin
and especially axial rotation so presently it is the absence of
astronomers rather than the presence of constellational astrologers
which proves to be the great problem.
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 18:09:07
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
AustinMN wrote:
> Like it or not, either:
> 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> Which one do you believe?
Actually, the Earth *could* rotate _less_ than 360 degrees in 24
hours, and the entire Universe could revolve around the Sun in a time
shorter than a year, but, yes, I don't think the original poster
believes in _that_ possibility.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 06:33:39
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> correlation.
First, my appologies if this has been multiposted; it's not showing up
in Google.
Oriel, there are only two options:
1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours.
2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
There is no third option. Which do you believe?
Austin
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 10:57:42
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> correlation.
Like it or not, either:
1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
There are no other alternatives. None.
Which one do you believe?
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:57:26
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
You notice he's from gmail.com and I've seen nothing but garbage from
posters from there.
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
"AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177437462.475237.280080@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Like it or not, either:
> 1) The earth rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours, or
> 2) The entire universe revolves around the sun once a year.
>
> There are no other alternatives. None.
>
> Which one do you believe?
>
> Austin
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 01:00:49
From: KLM
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Greg Crinklaw keeps track of your posts, so he can not keep
track of your posts since you are kill filed. Suggest you two get
together to reinvent ice cream.
oriel36 wrote:
> I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
> keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
> which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> There is no reason for it,none !,not for one moment let alone the
> years showing where the work of the pre-Copernican astronomers mesh
> with the heliocentric astronomers and on to John Harrison and his
> accurate watches for determining longitude based on the correlation.
>
> No era in history has done this,no civilisation has intentionally
> destroyed the careful work of so many and for what,for a hooby in
> magnification or spacetime nonsense that could be found in a 19th
> century novel.
>
> All because a man made a simple mistake in 1676 in a statement which
> bears a false correlation -
>
> "... 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... " John Flamsteed
>
> If a person cannot affirm a basic fact such as the relationship clocks
> have to terrestrial geometry and geography then God help us all.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:52:55
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
KLM wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw keeps track of your posts, so he can not keep
> track of your posts since you are kill filed. Suggest you two get
> together to reinvent ice cream.
So are you one of our regular jackasses with a new pseudonym? Or are
you a new pseudonym for Mr. Kelleher?
Either way you are a jackass.
*PLONK*
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:20:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 23, 8:28 pm, "MDA" <M...@nospam.net > wrote:
> It seems you are a real person...obsessive-compulsive?..yes..but
> nevertheless
> a real box of short circuits.
When coming across a dominant view where the correlation between
clocks and terrestrial geometry/geography is not just incorrect but
counter-productive,it can be quite an experience.
The 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds forced into existence by way of the
Earth's motions represents a rejection of the Copernican heliocentric
insight on axial and orbital motion,nothing more and nothing less.
The actual value which keeps clocks in sync with axial rotation is
exactly 24 hours/360 degrees via the Equation of Time correction and a
complimentary extension of the Copernican resolution for retrogrades
via the orbital motion of the Earth.
Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
correlation.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 03:18:12
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 24, 2:31 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Call me what you will but as a human who lives by the daily cycle of
> > the Earth,I have enough intelligence to recognise the human devised
> > principle of the 24 hour cycle as opposed to the variations in the
> > natural cycle,how they mesh and seperate.Looking at the replies so far
> > not one person affirms what most of the world already knows in respect
> > to clocks, axial rotation summed up in the 24 hour/360 degree
> > correlation.
>
> oriel,
>
> The earth does not rotate through 360 degrees in 24 hours. It does
> not matter who does or does not believe it. It does not.
>
> For that to be true (the earth rotating exactly 360 degrees in 24
> hours), then the entire universe would have to rotate around the sun
> once a year. That is the stupidity of what you believe. Either the
> whole universe revolves around the sun once a year, or the earth
> rotates more than 360 degrees in 24 hours. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION.
>
> Austin
It is a subtle and very,very intricate distinction between clocks
keeping in sync with axial rotation via the Equation of Time
correction at 24 hours/360 degrees and the false attempt to 'prove'
axial rotation is constant using the 24 hour clock and introducing
astrological geometry into the bargain to do it.
The false attempt keeps the Earth's face,axial rotation apart, fixed
to the Sun every 24 hours -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
I do not know how old you are but it is important to have the
neccessary experience to gauge the difference between the human
devised principles of the 24 hour day,how men brilliantly exploited
the average' 24 hour day and how it transfers to the idea of axial
rotation being constant,whether it is or not.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 18:28:50
From: MDA
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
It seems you are a real person...obsessive-compulsive?..yes..but
nevertheless
a real box of short circuits.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:38:12
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 23, 2:06 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> If you want to congratulate yourselves that you caught me out on a
> typo then good for you but I assure you that the value of 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds and its correlation to axial rotation through 360
> degrees is an explicit rejection of Copernican heliocentricity.
"heleocentric" referred to the universe. Do you believe the sun is at
the center of the universe?
It is not a rejection of heleocentricity, it is a refinement. But
better is not better for you.
Austin (no intelligent reply expected)
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 06:15:01
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The analemma was the monstrous fudge used by the late 17th century
> guys to bury the principles which are purely heliocentric both in
> determining how the orbital motion of the Earth resolves the observed
> behavior of the other planets and how clocks were adapted to axial
> rotation as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation as a geographical
> seperation.
.
> In short,adhere to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds for axial rotation
> and you are rejecting Copernican heliocentricity outright
.
At least now I have a clue - an inkling - as to precisely _where_ you
disagree with orthodox astronomy. I still think the orthodox
astronomers are the ones who are right here, though.
By heliocentric astronomy, I understand the viewpoint which has the
Sun standing still, with the circle of the Zodiac of the fixed stars
around it in a fixed orientation, and the Earth revolving around the
Sun.
Since the Earth takes slightly longer than 365 1/4 days (slightly
shorter if the line of the equinoxes, rather than the stars, were
taken as fixed, but that, too, is not reasonable) to go around the
Sun, and every 24 hours a spot on the Earth turns again to face the
Sun, which in that time is somewhat different in direction from the
Earth, about four minutes earlier in the synodic day, that spot on the
Earth will be in the same direction from the Earth's center.
Taking the Earth and Sun as not moving, and everything else going
around the Sun at an adjusted rate - Tycho Brahe's cosmology - is not
reasonable. But it is _equally_ erroneous to have the fixed stars
rotating around the Sun at a rate of once every 24,000 years as it is
to have them doing so once a year.
Hey, so you *do* have a point - 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds *is*
wrong, since that derives from the interplay of the synodic day and
the *tropical* year. One wishes to instead relate the synodic day to
the *sidereal* year.
So, here we are:
The conventional sidereal day is
23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 seconds
which would be 24 hours times 365.2422/266.2422;
What one should instead do, to *really* be in a nearly-inertial
reference frame, is to use
24 hours times 365.25636/366.25636, and get
23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds
Not a terribly big difference, though.
> Typo ,end of story.
.
I agree.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 00:34:24
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 22, 11:47 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
> > keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
> > which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> .
> I can certainly understand that it is frustrating to explain something
> that is true and not be understood.
>
The value I give above is a typo and if you are truly desperate you
can harp on about the typo then be my guest.If you feel more
comfortable then accept the institutional value which is false and
counter-productive and especially using the motions of the Earth to
justify the value -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
> > All because a man made a simple mistake in 1676 in a statement which
> > bears a false correlation -
>
> > "... 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... " John Flamsteed
>
> .
> Actually, there is empirical evidence in favor of Flamsteed. The
> Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, not a perfect circle.
>
Using a 1461 day calendrical cycle ,split into 3 years of 365 days and
1 year of 366 days ,is no way to justify the motions of the Earth.To
keep a star returning in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds each and every
time you need a civil calendar system otherwise it will not work.
> Does Solar noon recur at a given location exactly every 24 hours? No,
Make sure you tell this to your sidereal buddies who require that the
Earth does rotate to face noon in 24 hours -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
The .986 degree/3 minute 56 second difference is meant to show the
difference between 24 hours and 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
> it doesn't. If you compare Solar noon indicated by a sundial to an
> accurate clock over the course of a year, it will come earlier or
> later by about 15 minutes. This is known as the "Equation of Time",
> and it is embodied in the figure of the Analemma which appears on
> older globes.
>
> As, I believe, you well know.
>
The analemma was the monstrous fudge used by the late 17th century
guys to bury the principles which are purely heliocentric both in
determining how the orbital motion of the Earth resolves the observed
behavior of the other planets and how clocks were adapted to axial
rotation as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation as a geographical
seperation.
In short,adhere to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds for axial rotation
and you are rejecting Copernican heliocentricity outright
> But when we look at the Earth, moving around the Sun, in the larger
> context of the fixed stars, while the Earth turning to face the Sun is
> not *exactly* regular with a period of 24 hours, the Earth turning to
> face in the same direction in absolute space *is* exactly regular in
> terms of the sidereal period of 23 hours and 56 minutes and so on
> (*not* 24 hours and 56 minutes, that *would* be horribly wrong; there
> are not 13 days in a year, and, for that matter, the Sun does not rise
> in the West).
>
Typo ,end of story.
> So amateur astronomers do need to fiddle with ordinary clock movements
> to make clock drives out of them. And scientists thinking in terms of
> the *conservation of angular momentum* do need to think in the non-
> rotating frame of reference defined by the line between Earth and,
> say, Antares instead of the line between the Earth and the Sun.
>
Newton created the AU out of Flamsteed's false correlation and proof
for axial rotation and constellation geometry.It is an ugly spectacle
trying to fit a .986 degree orbital displacement into elliptical
geometry -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
Try it and watch the hideous spectacle of the Earth travelling faster
at the aphelion as it has to cover a greater orbital circumference to
satisfy the .986 degree daily difference.
I would much prefer that you took the original considerations involved
in the adaption of clocks to axial rotation via the Copernican
resolution for retrogrades via the orbital motion of the Earth.
> (Of course, the Sun and Antares both rotate around the galactic
> center, so this line does not really define a _truly_ nonrotating
> reference frame, just one that doesn't rotate over a longer time
> scale.)
>
> Flamsteed did not make any mistake, although it took later astronomers
> to verify that the Earth's rotation relative to the stars is very
> nearly isochronous. Not perfectly, thanks to the Moon and its tides -
> which is why we have leap seconds.
>
> John Savard
You think you are working with a 365 day 5 hours 49 minute system when
you are actually working with a system of 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days,the fact that you determine the return o a star to
your meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds lets you know that the
4 cycles of the Earth cannot be forced into a civil calendar system no
matter how convenient it is for Ra/Dec observing.
Everyone is an astronomer by living by the daily astronomical cycle
generated by the Earth's rotation,it would be really nice if somebody
appreciated how this cycle not only makes existence possible but also
how brilliant men created the 24 hour day based on the cycle in pre-
heliocentric times and how astronomers adapted the 24 hour day Equaion
of Time principles to axial rotation when it was discovered by
Copernicus.
Nobody is going to take away the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second
observational convenience for magnification but using the axial and
orbital motions of the Earth to justify it is an entirely different
matter.This is why Flamsteed's statement is
wrong,unsatisfactory,counter-productive and what have you -
"... 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... " John Flamsteed
Tell me what the analemma looks like at the Equator and you will
discover far more than you bargained for.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 00:06:57
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On Apr 23, 6:26 am, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Alan French wrote:
> > "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1177271270.342734.100340@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
> >>keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
> >>which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> > I don't know anyone who uses a value of 24 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
> > You must be confused... but we knew that. There certainly must be more
> > constructive ways to spend your time.
>
> ... if you are SANE!
>
> Anthony.
>
If you want to congratulate yourselves that you caught me out on a
typo then good for you but I assure you that the value of 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds and its correlation to axial rotation through 360
degrees is an explicit rejection of Copernican heliocentricity.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
The 24 hour/360 degree correlation is a direct result of the
Copernican insight on the Earth's orbital motion and how it overtakes
the slower moving outer planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
It left axial rotation to explain the daily cycle and as the Equation
of Time principles(which create the equable 24 hour day) existed it
was a matter of transfering the equable day on to terrestrial
longitudes where 4 minutes of clock time correspond to geographical
seperation of 4 minutes clock for each degree. of terrestrial
longitude.
There is no analemma,that was a late 17th century invention,a stupid
sub-geocentric waste of time for people who track the apparent motion
of the Sun and a variable axial tilt to explain it,considering that
even organisations like Nasa subscribe to that rubbish makes me less
harsh on people here -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
Tell me what the analemma will be like at the Equator where daylight/
darkness are symmetrical and I will explain to you that the pseudo-
dynamic of variable axial tilt is not just wrong for astronomical
timekeeping but also the explanation for global climate and the
seasons.
>
>
>
>
> > Clear skies, Alan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 22:14:41
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
"oriel36" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177271270.342734.100340@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
> keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
> which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
I don't know anyone who uses a value of 24 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
You must be confused... but we knew that. There certainly must be more
constructive ways to spend your time.
Clear skies, Alan
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 07:26:18
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
Alan French wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177271270.342734.100340@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
>>keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
>>which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
>
> I don't know anyone who uses a value of 24 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
> You must be confused... but we knew that. There certainly must be more
> constructive ways to spend your time.
... if you are SANE!
Anthony.
>
> Clear skies, Alan
>
>
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 22:57:55
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
On 22 Apr 2007 12:47:50 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com >
wrote:
>I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
>keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
>which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 18:52:10
From: AM
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I do not enjoy coming here
Than don't.........
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:47:06
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
oriel36 wrote:
> I do not enjoy coming here and explaining the basic reasons why clocks
> keep in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to an audience
> which prefers an incorrect value of 24 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
.
I can certainly understand that it is frustrating to explain something
that is true and not be understood.
> All because a man made a simple mistake in 1676 in a statement which
> bears a false correlation -
>
> "... 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... " John Flamsteed
.
Actually, there is empirical evidence in favor of Flamsteed. The
Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, not a perfect circle.
Does Solar noon recur at a given location exactly every 24 hours? No,
it doesn't. If you compare Solar noon indicated by a sundial to an
accurate clock over the course of a year, it will come earlier or
later by about 15 minutes. This is known as the "Equation of Time",
and it is embodied in the figure of the Analemma which appears on
older globes.
As, I believe, you well know.
But when we look at the Earth, moving around the Sun, in the larger
context of the fixed stars, while the Earth turning to face the Sun is
not *exactly* regular with a period of 24 hours, the Earth turning to
face in the same direction in absolute space *is* exactly regular in
terms of the sidereal period of 23 hours and 56 minutes and so on
(*not* 24 hours and 56 minutes, that *would* be horribly wrong; there
are not 13 days in a year, and, for that matter, the Sun does not rise
in the West).
So amateur astronomers do need to fiddle with ordinary clock movements
to make clock drives out of them. And scientists thinking in terms of
the *conservation of angular momentum* do need to think in the non-
rotating frame of reference defined by the line between Earth and,
say, Antares instead of the line between the Earth and the Sun.
(Of course, the Sun and Antares both rotate around the galactic
center, so this line does not really define a _truly_ nonrotating
reference frame, just one that doesn't rotate over a longer time
scale.)
Flamsteed did not make any mistake, although it took later astronomers
to verify that the Earth's rotation relative to the stars is very
nearly isochronous. Not perfectly, thanks to the Moon and its tides -
which is why we have leap seconds.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 07:12:28
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: what has happened to people
|
In article <1177278426.410451.188080@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> But when we look at the Earth, moving around the Sun, in the larger
> context of the fixed stars, while the Earth turning to face the Sun is
> not *exactly* regular with a period of 24 hours, the Earth turning to
> face in the same direction in absolute space *is* exactly regular in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> terms of the sidereal period of 23 hours and 56 minutes and so on
> (*not* 24 hours and 56 minutes, that *would* be horribly wrong; there
> are not 13 days in a year, and, for that matter, the Sun does not rise
> in the West).
......................
> Flamsteed did not make any mistake, although it took later astronomers
> to verify that the Earth's rotation relative to the stars is very
> nearly isochronous. Not perfectly, thanks to the Moon and its tides -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> which is why we have leap seconds.
>
> John Savard
Nice self-contradiction...... :-)
Apart from this minor detail, I agree with what you wrote, of course....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
|
