Re: Clock movement
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jan 2006 11:36:00 -0800
I do NOT have an opinion,I present the actual manner in which the
equable 24 hour day was derived through the Equation of Time and from
there to its heliocentric adaption for axial rotation at 15 degrees per
hour exactly.
There is nothing unreasonable or particularly difficult in appreceating
the pre-Copernican invention of the 24 hour day from natural noon nor
the heliocentric principle that the Earth has an independent motion,a
motion which is intrinsically linked to clocks.The Earth also has an
independent orbital motion which is the basis for Copernican
heliocentricity.
Then there is the disgraceful and hideous sidereal format (a 17th
century cataloguing creation) that wrecks the ability to appreceate the
core 24 hour/360 degree principle on one side and Copernican
heliocentricity on the other.If you 'understand' the sidereal
justification * which renders axial and orbital motion as a single
homogenised average I assure you that what is brilliant in treating
axial and orbital motions as independent motions for all sorts of
purposes, will wither in the hands of ignorant people.
People express the same sentiment of not be able to discern the core
principle behind 24 hours/360 degrees for axial rotation or imagine
that it is a personal opinion yet perfectly 'understand' the sidereal
justification.Even allowing for unfamiliarity with the correct
intepretation in how the equable day made the transfer to its
heliocentric adaption,it should have taken no more than a few days to
figure out that something is badly out of kilter.Even by making it easy
and showing where the error occured in the 17th century and for what
purposes has not altered conceptions here one iota and that is
disgraceful.
I am bound to turn somewhere else with the material for there is
absolutely nothing difficult in re-aligning the axial rotation and its
association with timepieces back to its proper astronomical
principles,principles which most people now understand thanks to the
story of John Harrison and Longitude.What are you going to say ?,that
you don't understand how the development of accurate clocks resolved
the problem.Have you not enough sense to get below the later hybrid
versions which clocks and the core 24 hour/360 degree principle allows
?.
Any other noble discipline and distinguished men would have called a
halt a long time ago but I have to come here in the 21st century and
try to explain why it is not a good idea to tie the Earth's rotation
directly to an non existent celestial sphere.I do not insult you,you
insult yourselves and the rest of humanity with you,any other judgement
would be insincere.
* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Clock movement
- From: Honest John
- Re: Clock movement
- References:
- Clock movement
- From: timeandtide
- Re: Clock movement
- From: oriel36
- Re: Clock movement
- From: The Baron
- Re: Clock movement
- From: oriel36
- Re: Clock movement
- From: Jim Bianchi
- Clock movement
- Prev by Date: Re: Clock movement
- Next by Date: Re: Clock movement
- Previous by thread: Re: Clock movement
- Next by thread: Re: Clock movement
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading