|
|
On Apr 21, 9:38 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> "David Weinshenker" <daz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:480CE8CC.47595263@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | 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
>
> Several years ago I suggested to Kellerher that he aligned
> two poles in his backyard with a star he'd recognise again,
> note the time of alignment with his wristwatch and then check
> again on the next few nights. Needless to say his bigotry
> precluded him from carrying out such a simple test.
> Such people are simply not worth bothering with, he'd rather
> rant that Flamsteed and Newton were the originators of a malicious
> conspiracy to which those that own clock-driven equatorial mounts
> even to this day are party to.
Not at all - a star returns to the same location 3 minutes 56 seconds
earlier each 24 hours without fail,the thing about it is that you need
the calendar system to make it work.Because Flamsteed determined
that this 'proved' axial rotation is constan in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds t,he was obligated to explain what fills in the gap to 24
hours and came up with orbital motion and a noon cycle of exactly 24
hours -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
No offence to the solar /sidereal constant 3 minute 56 second orbital
speed and distance but I quite like Kepler's orbital geometry where
distance and speed vary -
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/Kepler2.JPG
I could not stomach another contrived story and it is unfair to have
to listen to it without the slightest sign tthat people know a horror
when they see it,You can explain an exact 24 hour observed noon
cycle,explain axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds,explain orbital speed and distance as constant all
at the same time then astronomy is no longer the preserve of
intelligence but more like a drawn out version of Piltdown man. but
more destructive.
|
|
