|
|
On Apr 21, 9:19 pm, David Weinshenker <daz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:48:09 -0700, David Weinshenker
> > <daz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > >How would you measure the rotation: suppose you landed on this planet
> > >from outer space, with your own time-measuring devices (that were marked
> > >in some totally alien units, independent of Earthlings' "hours"), and
> > >were wondering what the rotation period of the planet was. By what
> > >observation would you take that measurement? (Observing the apparent
> > >position of distant stars? Observing the position of sun? Using a
> > >Foucault pendulum at the pole?)
>
> > Which is very much the situation with us as the "aliens" when we measure
> > the rotation period of every other body in the Solar System. We specify
> > the period with respect to the stars (which is exactly what you would
> > get with an inertial measurement, of course). In some cases, we
> > _measure_ with respect to something else, such as an orbiting
> > spacecraft. But then we convert to the inertial (sidereal) value.
>
> Yeah, it seems that such distinctions are lost on "oriel36", who
> seems to believe that there is something inherent or absolute about
> the "24 hours = 360 degrees of rotation" relationship (independent
> of how that rotation is measured), appears to be unaware that the
> observation of stellar transits -is- a way of "isolating axial
> rotation as an independent motion to be checked". and appears
> not to have spent enough time observing the night sky to note
> that particular stars do in fact rise "earlier" (relative to
> the solar day of terrestrial timekeeping) each night.
>
> -dave w- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whatever fault you find with me,I appear to be the only person here
who understands the difference between a direct observation and a
convenient principle.No external references were required for
'constant' axial rotation as it applies to clocks and terrestrial
longitudes,it just came about as a consequence of the pre-existing
Equation of Time principles which create the 24 hour day from natural
noon.The average 24 hour cycle was overlayed on planetary geography
and took on the appearnace of constant axial rotation in the
process.,the guys at the South Pole with the Foucault's pendulum
experiment were working off the correct correlation of 24 hours/360
degrees assuming axial rotation is constant and that is nowhere near
the value assigned to it by contemporaries.
I have already explained how the 'solar/sidereal fiction expands out
into the calendar system but in truth,it is enjoyable to see how the
astronomical timekeepers extended the average 24 hour day to planetary
geography and geometry once axial rotation was discovered to cause the
daily cycle.Well,this thing is not going to go away unless there is
some sort of perverted satisfaction in subscribing to a false set of
principles which are unproductive.While it is genuinely disconcerting
and downright uncomfortable to be among a group of people who do not
behave like adults in this matter ,even though they may hold
responsible jobs and be responsible parents ect,,the unfortunate truth
is that once the error is spotted,it must be dealt with regardless of
the consequences.The level of reasoning behind the solar/sidereal
fiction is just too damn bad to continue with regardless of who gets
burned and especially as it is a foundational error for structural
astronomy,an astrological foundation to be precise.
If anyone can live with formalised astrology then God help us all.
|
|