|
Posted by oriel36 on December 9, 2006, 6:28 am
Please log in for more thread options
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > quoting me:
> > >We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> > >year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> > >for planting crops with.
> > The Muslims don't base their calendar on the sidereal year..... :-)
> No, they don't. But they don't (seem to) agree that calendars are for
> planting crops with - they base theirs on something other than the
> tropical year.
> John Savard
You pair of numbskulls do not realise that once you have the equable 24
hour day and subsequently equable hours,minutes and seconds,you can
make as many types of 'years' as you wish.Our ancestors simply created
the calendar system with 1 year of 365 days and 3 years of 366 days or
a 1461 day cycle .
This Christmas season you received a present of the outlines of the
great Western adaption of the Equation of Time principles overlayed on
the 16th century discovery that the Earth has an independent axial
rotation.Through this principle,clocks are still correlated to axial
rotation at 1 degree for each min ute of rotation making 24 hours
through 360 degrees in total.
You only get out of astronomy what you bring to it (paraphrasing Shaw)
and the small effort it takes to grasp the sparkling jewel of the
astronomical adaption,where ancient timekeeping meshes with later
heliocentric astronomy rewards the person a thpousand times the effort
put in.
|
|
Posted by oriel36 on December 8, 2006, 3:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> oriel36 wrote:
> > a more capable person can explain how it was done even in the
> > hostile enviroment which proposes an alternative value based on the
> > return of a star to a location.
show/hide quoted text
> We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> for planting crops with.
> OK, so maybe the Muslims don't agree. But nearly every other culture
> does - even those that use lunar calendars, and thus have a little
> tolerance for things bouncing around, use the Metonic cycle. (And think
> of the "joints and breaths" in the Chinese system.)
What you do is justify the return of a star to a location each day
using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth and correlate clocks
with this awful contrivance.
A real astronomer could gauge how the Equation of Time principles which
create the equable 24 hour day is overalid on terrestrial geometry as
a principle that axial rotation correlate with the pace of a clock hand
at precisely 4 minutes of clock time for 1 degree of rotation.
show/hide quoted text
> John Savard
It is fine,out of incapacity,not to take the information seriously
however the exquisite information contained in both the pre-Copernican
Equation of Time principles and its heliocentric adaption to axial
rotation at 4 minutes for each degree making 24 hours through 360
degrees makes you look extremely ignorant.
Not one single person thinks it necessary to support the original
astronomical foundations of timekeeping or its exquisite and pragmatic
adaption by the heliocentric astronomers and that is the real
shame.With nothing to lose and everything to gain you still stick with
celestial sphere geometry and pretend you are astronomers.Here is what
you ultimately believe -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
Not a single individual appears to have the wits to give that extra bit
of effort to grasp how the Equation of Time creates not just the 24
hour day but also how each of these days elapse seamlessly into the
next thereby making it easy to overlay on the daily cycle based on
axial rotation without requiring an external reference.
Are things so bad,so ignorant or so rude that each and every one of you
would stick with a horrible 17th century contrivance with no sense or
meaning exacept as an observational convenience.
|
|
Posted by Mij Adyaw on December 8, 2006, 4:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options
show/hide quoted text
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
Merry Christmas to you Mr Oriel36. Can you tell us if the Christmas star was
a planetary conjunction? Do you have any insight?
Thanks,
mij
|
|
Posted by oriel36 on December 8, 2006, 4:27 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Mij Adyaw wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> >> oriel36 wrote:
> Merry Christmas to you Mr Oriel36. Can you tell us if the Christmas star was
> a planetary conjunction? Do you have any insight?
> Thanks,
> mij
The only conjunction you should care about is the one of 1504 where the
faster Mars overtook the slower Jupiter and the even slower Saturn,fell
behind the two outer planets and then overtook them again,Copernicus
realised that from a faster orbitally moving Earth the observations
could be explained as a common motion around a stationary central Sun -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Those are actual images of Jupiter and Saturn and that is the faster
Earth overtaking them,and this alone affirms that we see orbital
motions around the Sun from a moving Earth.
Your diseased minds cannot even grasp a simple astronomical concept
like the one above so forget about a Merry Christmas,you spend you
time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
|
|
Posted by on December 9, 2006, 8:49 am
Please log in for more thread options oriel36 wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> you spend you
> time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
Why do you think that?
Do you think that orthodox astronomy somehow denies that we live in a
Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun?
Of course, once we use gravity to calculate the three-dimensional
positions of all the planets, then we calculate their positions from an
Earth viewpoint to figure out where to point our telescopes. That's
because our telescopes rest on the surface of the Earth.
Or is using "gravity to calculate the three-dimensional positions of
all the planets" supposed to be our mistake? You have posted things
about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow
having taken a wrong turn.
Since Kepler's laws derive - perfectly, without any mismatch - from the
laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the
inverse-square law of gravity - your objections seem to be bizarre.
Maybe you _are_ inviting us to look at celestial mechanics from a
valuable new perspective that would make it easier to understand, but,
I'm sorry, I have to tell you the truth: right now, all you are
managing to do is annoy and confuse people.
John Savard
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Western Crises at sunset | September 21, 2005, 2:14 pm |
| Re: Western Feminists Silent | January 14, 2008, 1:29 am |
| Western prominence, Jan 14th | January 14, 2008, 6:34 pm |
| Solar Prominences, Western Limb | February 11, 2008, 4:47 pm |
| Venus (And Mercury ) in Western Sky this week... | March 31, 2010, 6:53 pm |
| ?new impact Crater found in Western Australia | March 24, 2008, 10:50 pm |
| Well, aids provoke on the part of cheerful cracks, unless they're western. | December 8, 2007, 9:54 pm |
| He may all right trade surrounding and fears our nervous, western exams in view of a expedition. | August 13, 2007, 7:14 am |
| GREAT RED SPOT NOT AS GREAT | February 26, 2009, 6:07 pm |
| Re: The great Pay-Day | December 25, 2007, 1:09 pm |
|
XML Sitemap
> > quoting me:
> > >We based our year on the *tropical* year instead of the *sidereal*
> > >year, as soon as we could tell the difference, because calendars are
> > >for planting crops with.
> > The Muslims don't base their calendar on the sidereal year..... :-)
> No, they don't. But they don't (seem to) agree that calendars are for
> planting crops with - they base theirs on something other than the
> tropical year.
> John Savard