Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Nov 2005 10:48:04 -0800
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> In article <Xdrdf.5309$PI4.3852@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Hayley <cambs.home@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >well my original post provoked a friendly discussion I see!!
>
> Apologies about that. I'd hoped to flag up some of the wider issues
> withiout detracting from Old John's achievements (the clock collection
> in the old observatory in Greenwich is a delight). To put it mildly,
> the result was not what I'd aimed at.
>
Harrison's inventive achievement is by far exceeded by the exquisite
principle which govern the pace of a clock attached to terrestial
longitudes at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.
> I'd suggest an application of killfiles and a return to discussing
> astronomy - and I'll go back to lurking for a while.
>
Clocks,terrestial longitudes and astronomy go hand in hand,that you
call yourself a doctor while imagining the inferior cataloguing
justification for sidereal rotation makes you an imposter.
You are a long way from your last response of how Harrson did not
deserve his due in collecting the prize but I assure you the last
chaptewr of this story has yet to be written.
> Ob. Lunations and Jovian eclipses: a check through my old copies
> of the Admiralty manual of navigation reveals that these weren't
> formally part of practice by the 1930s. I can onlt assume that
> my father picked up the skills from an old-fashioned navigator
> who regarded tham as still worth knowing - and who recognised
> that clocks can break!
>
The principles which govern clocks and terrestial longitudes are the
same now as they were when the early heliocentrists adapted the 24
hour equable day to indepedent axial rotation using the noon Equation
of Time correction.
You peevish and miserable men broke with those principles for a dumb
view that ties the Earth's rotation directly to the stellar background
and the calendar system and wrecked heliocentric astronomy in the
process.
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
> "your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
> (Peter D. Rieden)
You qualifications are wothless for if you can live with your dumb
sidereal astronomical justification for axial rotation you certainly do
not deserve the title of doctor.
Hayley will use a version of a clock developed by Harrison and a system
that stretches back to remote antiquity while you smallminded people go
about denying it.Harrison was better than the lot of you for there was
no hiding behind linguistic tinsel,just the tangible results of good
workmanship and inventiveness.That the final piece of the puzzle
resting on the exquisite Equation of Time correction which transfers
the pre-Copernican equable day to its heliocentric adaption to axial
rotation is surfacing,I assure you that lurk all you like,I will
highlight just how small you lot really are.
.
- References:
- Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- From: Hayley
- Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- From: oriel36
- Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- From: Mark McIntyre
- Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- From: Hayley
- Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- From: Andrew Robert Breen
- Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- Prev by Date: Re: BBCWS:One Planet - the commercialisation of space
- Next by Date: Re: What will i see with this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem
- Next by thread: FS: Televue 1.25" Eyepieces and other stuff on Ebay UK
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|