An Irish Astronomer

Zubeneschamali

So, Mr. Astronomer, the motor drive on your telescope, you know, which allows you to keep the scope pointed at some celestial body as the Earth turns...

How many seconds would it take your motor to rotate your telescope through 360 degrees?

orion216

Boards.ie indeed !.

Although they created a new mess of idealized rotation in 24 hours back in 1820,at least they understood just how mindnumbingly bad the old 'solar vs sidereal' conception is when it was explained to them how it creates an imbalance between one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth.

I don't condemn anyone here for acting with such hostility last year,as far as I am concerned you condemned yourselves even without knowing it.There was always a slim chance that an Irish person here could comprehend the enormous change that took place recently but that chance has past - too dull I guess.

Rubeter

Just for the laugh I want to add something to the mix, orion216 you do know the Earth rotates through 361 degrees in 24 hours.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

Just for the laugh I want to add something to the mix, orion216 you do know the Earth rotates through 361 degrees in 24 hours.

You are such strange people of no value to yourselves or the community that now preaches that the Earth turned once in exactly 24 hours back in 1820.

Just letting this forum know that it has no longer a mandate to discuss astronomy for at least I give the wider community credit for understanding why the old 'solar vs sidereal' ideology was poor reasoning derived from an exceptionally poor conclusion.

Maybe you all are young children in which case you are excused otherwise the story presented here is straightforward and fairly easy to comprehend.

burstbuckle

So anyways what happened back in 1820?

orion216

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, Mr. Astronomer, the motor drive on your telescope, you know, which allows you to keep the scope pointed at some celestial body as the Earth turns...

How many seconds would it take your motor to rotate your telescope through 360 degrees?

You are living in the past son or in your head,they recently changed the story to rotation once in 24 hours albeit in such a way that is equally as bad as the old 'sidereal'myth that you still cling to.

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds." NASA

If you want to contend with these guys then be my guest,I am the person who forced the changes and they still can't get it right.

No point is repeating what happened in terms of a conceptual shift any longer,it takes an intelligent person who either gets it almost immediately or they don't,it just happens that people here do not and no complaints from me.

Rubeter

orion216 wrote: »

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds." NASA
.

He is correct, one solar day or one rotation of 361 degrees took 24 hours in 1820, today it is 2.5 milliseconds longer.

Here is the full quote, link.
"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," Daniel MacMillan, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said in a statement. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds."

Note solar day.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

He is correct, one solar day or one rotation of 361 degrees took 24 hours in 1820, today it is 2.5 milliseconds longer.

Here is the full quote, link.
"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," Daniel MacMillan, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said in a statement. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds."

Note solar day.

Son,they at least figured out that each rotation through 360 degrees keeps in step with each 24 hour day hence you have one day/night cycle.

If you have to invent '361 degrees' or believe there are 1465 rotations in 1461 twenty four hour days as they tried previously they lose cause and effect which links rotation to all the effects within a 24 hour day,if you can read,then you may get the idea from the question in the title of the website -

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night

You are simply behind the times,too dull to know why they changed and why they had to.It is not your fault that you can't seem to get to grips with the 'new' story of the Earth slowing down to an exactly 24 hour value in 1820.

You just don't seem to get the shift in certainty from the old 'sidereal' time myth and the new one while other have already made the leap,albeit it is no better or worse than the old one.I have no use for people who would find themselves rejected by their own community and who would expect me to.

Strange,strange people who live between an error and a lie.

Rubeter

orion216 wrote: »

Strange,strange people who live between an error and a lie.

And some live in loopy doopy la la land.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

And some live in loopy doopy la la land.

When you have to invent '361 degrees' to support a 'solar vs sidereal' concept that is already rejected by your own community then you are in an intellectual place that neither I nor your own community would care to contend with.

At least the wider community made some effort to keep the 24 hour day in step with the day/night cycle and I suppose that is some sort of recent achievement whereas the old 'sidereal' myth had the Earth turn 1465 times in 1461 days,so stupid that no wonder they dropped it as soon as it was realized they lose touch between cause and effect.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night

Again,strange people who belong nowhere conceptually as at least your own community recognizes why the 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains the rotational information of the planet.The thing about is that I put you in a position between an error and a lie and the rest is your own choice.

Rubeter

orion216 wrote: »

When you have to invent '361 degrees' to support a 'solar vs sidereal' concept that is already rejected by your own community then you are in an intellectual place that neither I nor your own community would care to contend with.

At least the wider community made some effort to keep the 24 hour day in step with the day/night cycle and I suppose that is some sort of recent achievement whereas the old 'sidereal' myth had the Earth turn 1465 times in 1461 days,so stupid that no wonder they dropped it as soon as it was realized they lose touch between cause and effect.

Again,strange people who belong nowhere conceptually as at least your own community recognizes why the 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains the rotational information of the planet.

You are a product of late 17th century Royal Society thinking,nothing more or nothing less and boy did those guys screw up.

You are going to take your refrain to the grave aren't you?
There is a very simple reason that after all your years of ranting all over the web (and you sure have been around) not one single person agrees with you, you get banned left right and centre, and people make jokes about you (the donkey is really funny) and that is because you are nuts.

Bye for now Gerry, though no doubt we'll meet again on some astronomy forum with you slowly loosing the plot trying to figure out how a star can cross the meridian once every 23h 56mins 4sec, you do know you look through the little end of a telescope, don't you?

Sparticle

Rubeter wrote: »

You are going to take your refrain to the grave aren't you?
There is a very simple reason that after all your years of ranting all over the web (and you sure have been around) not one single person agrees with you, you get banned left right and centre, and people make jokes about you (the donkey is really funny) and that is because you are nuts.

Bye for now Gerry, though no doubt we'll meet again on some astronomy forum with you slowly loosing the plot trying to figure out how a star can cross the meridian once every 23h 56mins 4sec, you do know you look through the little end of a telescope, don't you?

Is this crazy rambling a recurring thing?

Rubeter

Sparticle wrote: »

Is this crazy rambling a recurring thing?

Yep, he's been at it for years, here and all over the web under various names, same old stuff over and over again, never taking any notice of anything anyone says. Don't bring up the speed of light and that we see distant galaxies as they were in the past or he'll blow a fuse while typing his rant.
Won't you Ger?

Sparticle

Rubeter wrote: »

Yep, he's been at it for years, here and all over the web under various names, same old stuff over and over again, never taking any notice of anything anyone says. Don't bring up the speed of light and that we see distant galaxies as they were in the past or he'll blow a fuse while typing his rant.
Won't you Ger?

What a strange character.

Reminds me of a guy I encountered on the conspiracy theories forum a couple of months back.

Rubeter

Sparticle wrote: »

What a strange character.

Reminds me of a guy I encountered on the conspiracy theories forum a couple of months back.

The anonymity of cyberspace does seem to bring them out, I guess there is so much pointing, laughing and walking away in real life that this is a great way for them to get their crazy ideas off their chests.
I'm waiting to bump into Gerry at an astronomy meet someday, now that would be interesting.

im invisible

i'm confused... what EXACTLY are you saying, never mind what he said or she said or what happened over 100 years ago, what is your point, exactly?

emo72

im invisible wrote: »

i'm confused... what EXACTLY are you saying, never mind what he said or she said or what happened over 100 years ago, what is your point, exactly?

i dont think this guy is able to put his point across very well. i mean look at the title of this thread "An Irish Astronomer". what the deuce does that title have to to do with the ramblings in here?

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

You are going to take your refrain to the grave aren't you?
There is a very simple reason that after all your years of ranting all over the web (and you sure have been around) not one single person agrees with you, you get banned left right and centre, and people make jokes about you (the donkey is really funny) and that is because you are nuts.

Bye for now Gerry, though no doubt we'll meet again on some astronomy forum with you slowly loosing the plot trying to figure out how a star can cross the meridian once every 23h 56mins 4sec, you do know you look through the little end of a telescope, don't you?

You poor thing,the most basic fact of all is that the Earth turns once (360 degrees) in 24 hours and at least students now stand a good chance of learning this fact.You have a disorder in that when you have the principles explained to you by the very man who created the world's first accurate watch,you and many like you lose the power to read and that ,my man,is a cult mentality by any other name.

"The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of those degrees; ) and it must follow, that from the time any one of those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are, can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is clearly discovered." John Harrison

I didn't come here to convince you that the 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains the basic rotational facts of the planet nor even that your community no longer pushes the 'sidereal' value for one rotation by moving to an idea that the Earth is slowing down from an idealized 24 hour rotation last century. It is simply not your fault that you can't see the shift in perspective that happened recently and exactly why it happened for although the outward explanation is that the Earth's rotation is a bad timekeeper compared to atomic clocks,they had to shift the value of one rotation to 24 hours and away from the dumb late 17th century reasoning that you adhere to.

Again,you are not to blame,you need a sharp intellect and a serious knowledge of history to work things out and it just happens that no reader in this Irish forum is up to it and that is a shame.

orion216

im invisible wrote: »

i'm confused... what EXACTLY are you saying, never mind what he said or she said or what happened over 100 years ago, what is your point, exactly?

You see,it is far more complicated than just getting the most basic fact in astronomy wrong by way of a stupid conclusion drawn in the late 17th century using stellar circumpolar motion,Newton's clockwork solar system is built on the wrong value for rotation and Newton's agenda is at the core of all mathematical modeling.It is quite a scam and the fact that anyone can affirm through easily understood principles that the Earth turns once in 24 hours while you cannot is more than sufficient to draw attention to a huge problem.

You see readers here scream that the Earth turns once in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds but their community has recently moved away from that value and very close to the 24 hour value without explaining how the 24 hour value was extrapolated from principles that are very stable and are tied to the Lat/Long system through rotation.You don't get the point but it dawned on others a long time ago that the imbalance between rotations and 24 hour days that the 'sidereal time' principles was generating was so nonsensical that it had to be buried,after all,immediate experience tells you that one rotation of the Earth and one 24 hour cycle keep in step.

If it is any consolation,not being good enough to handle the issue is not your fault nor even those poor individuals who hold on to an idea that has all the astronomical substance of a 'Piltdown man' skull because they can't reason things through.It means that all their other opinions have little value so to speak for who wants to listen to a person who can't match a rotation with a 24 hour day ?.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

The anonymity of cyberspace does seem to bring them out, I guess there is so much pointing, laughing and walking away in real life that this is a great way for them to get their crazy ideas off their chests.
I'm waiting to bump into Gerry at an astronomy meet someday, now that would be interesting.

When you obliterate the original mechanical agenda of Royal Society empiricists and their dumb clockwork solar system based on a rotating celestial sphere of course there will be insults ,taunts,opposition and even expulsion.

Facts are facts so when you can't make heads nor tails of the timekeeping systems and how they emerged from references generated by the daily and orbital motions of the planet,you do not have a mandate to even discuss cause and effect between dynamics and how we experience them daily and throughout the year.I suggest you read John Harrison's description of how things actually fit together and you may stand a chance of sparking your brain into life and out of an indoctrination,the same goes for everyone else here.

Rubeter

im invisible wrote: »

i'm confused... what EXACTLY are you saying, never mind what he said or she said or what happened over 100 years ago, what is your point, exactly?

Quite simply he is saying the Earth makes one full rotation every 24 hours, because the Sun will return to the same (longitudinal) position in the sky at the same time each day.
This is not in fact correct because the Earth is actually moving around the Sun in its orbit and must therefore rotate by 361 degrees for the Sun to return to the same (apparent) position each day.

When measured with respect to a fixed object eg a star, the true rotational speed of the Earth can be measured and that is one rotation every 23hrs 56mins and 4sec, he will not accept this rather well known (and easily provable with nothing more than a good watch) fact.

He has no way of proving his theory because 1. it can't be proven and 2. is quite easily dis-proven so the best he can do is try to befuddle with language and insult people.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

Quite simply he is saying the Earth makes one full rotation every 24 hours, because the Sun will return to the same (longitudinal) position in the sky at the same time each day.

Don't be a naughty boy,one of the oldest astronomical facts is that the length of natural noon cycles vary with each rotation hence you have no basis for the 'solar vs sidereal' nonsense,something the wider community came to understand within the last decade .Try to understand Huygens -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. "

http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Because history and the technical details are on my side,I never concern myself with spectators and imitators squirming around with observations they hardly understand but it would be nice to encounter an individual who knew how to keep physical considerations as tight as the old astronomers once did and who did not allow themselves the dubious luxury of conjuring assertions out of thin air like you are doing now.

Simple fact is that the old 'sidereal ' myth has been jettisoned and the equally poor 'new' version is being promoted as though the 'solar vs sidereal' version didn't exist.I did wonder how they were going to deal with the issue,instead of asking how the timekeeping system was put together like any system,they decided to fabricate this new idea of the Earth slowing down with 1820 being a year of significance that the Earth turned exactly in 24 hours and has slowed down ever since.

Corrupt bankers and politicians have nothing on the empirical community who can manufacture history at will,it takes an intelligent person to notice and why the disreputable behavior is exceptionally damaging as it filters down into the education system and produces unthinking individuals who simply cannot equate one 24 hour day with one rotation of the Earth and that the Earth is round and rotating with specific dimensions and valued attached.

Rubeter

orion216 wrote: »

............. produces unthinking individuals who simply cannot equate one 24 hour day with one rotation of the Earth and that the Earth is round and rotating with specific dimensions and valued attached.

Linking rotations to one particular object (in this case the Sun) would lead to quite a few logical inconsistencies, creating an unexplainable retrograde rotation around its N/S axis for Uranus with no resultant apparent movement of the stars for one.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

When measured with respect to a fixed object eg a star, the true rotational speed of the Earth can be measured and that is one rotation every 23hrs 56mins and 4sec, he will not accept this rather well known (and easily provable with nothing more than a good watch) fact.

You are not getting the point of this thread which is that the empirical community has jettisoned the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value for rotation and shifted to the 24 hour value - it had to because the 1461 natural rotations ( 4 orbital circuits) in 1461 twenty four hour days do not allow rotations to fall out of step with 24 hour days.If you insist the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days as per the old 'sidereal time' myth you immediately lose the rotational cause of the day/night cycle and at least I give the wider empirical community credit for recently understanding that much as the question in that website demonstrates and as they shift to the 24 hour value for rotation -

'Why does rotation cause day and night?'

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night

While the lack of transparency is awful,some people did get the point and acted on it,albeit in the worst possible way like so many institutions that try to bury their errors.You don't seem to understand that you are now outside the community that is now eager to promote a new version of a slowing Earth through history and forget that it ever believed in the stuff you are trying to promote.If there is any part of 'It is not your fault' that you do not understand then let me know,this thread is only for those who see the change from the 'sidereal error' to the new lie of idealized rotation once in 24 hours back in 1820 so if you could think straight and reason properly you are only behind in the game so to speak rather than being completely indoctrinated.

As for astronomy meetings,standing beside a telescope makes you no more an astronomer than standing beside a microscope makes you a medical doctor but that being said,a magnification exercise at night is fine if a limited expression of astronomy just as Galileo once commented -

"SALV.But the telescope plainly shows us its horns to be as bounded
and distinct as those of the moon, and they are seen to belong to a
very large circle, in a ratio almost forty times as great as the same
disc when it is beyond the sun, toward the end of its morning
appearances. "
SAGR. Oh Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been foryou to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear anexperiment [telescope]!
SALV. Yes, but how much less would his sublime intellect be celebrated among the learned! "
Galileo ,Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632

You have to be capable of putting images into context and that has become a lost art even when 21st century imaging now makes interpretation so easy,the insight Galileo is refering to is this one -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

Rubeter

orion216 wrote: »

As for astronomy meetings,standing beside a telescope makes you no more an astronomer than standing beside a microscope makes you a medical doctor

Same as standing beside a car doesn't make you a driver.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

Linking rotations to one particular object (in this case the Sun) would lead to quite a few logical inconsistencies, creating an unexplainable retrograde rotation around its N/S axis for Uranus with no resultant apparent movement of the stars for one.

The linkage between one rotation and one 24 hour day is through the effects all people experience such as a day/night cycle within a 24 hour period,the fact is that the mindnumbing stupidity of 'sidereal time' promotes the idea that rotations fall out of step with 24 hour days and that is why they now run a mile from something you are still trying to promote.

The emergence of the 24 hour system in tandem with the Lat/Long system is based on 1461 natural noon rotations in the time it takes the Earth to complete 4 orbital circuits whereas some people with the 'sidereal time' disorder imagine 1465 rotations for the same period hence cause and effect goes out the window,the basic question like what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily or what causes daylight to turn to darkness within each 24 hour period.

It is not sinking in that the empirical community has tried desperately to distance itself from the conception you believe in by creating a lie instead of dealing with the foundations of timekeeping properly.You are like the person still believing that the Piltdown man skull was real instead of a hoax whereas your community has moved on.It may be that readers here just don't get it and that is the way I have to leave it without the slightest complaint or objection.

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

Same as standing beside a car doesn't make you a driver.

It has occurred to me that you may be impressionable children in which case you are excused.The adults in the empirical community got a glimpse of the late 17th century mistake and tried to undo the damage but in such a way as to create a lie instead dealing with the error which Flamsteed created and in a transparent way.

Carry on,I saw one participant in this forum dwell longer on an issue than what is normal in empirical circles in that an explanation didn't seem right to him but like many others he succumbed to speculative conclusions brought in to diffuse his arguments.

You are a spectator and can be forgiven,I have made the difference in getting a shift in perspective even if I have yet to find a person of intelligence and integrity who can work out the magnificent story of how we the great timekeeping system were put together by men who could act and think in a brilliant way.That invitation was ignored here but that is fine and that is how I leave it.

Rubeter

orion216 wrote: »

The linkage between one rotation and one 24 hour day is through the effects all people experience such as a day/night cycle within a 24 hour period,the fact is that the mindnumbing stupidity of 'sidereal time' promotes the idea that rotations fall out of step with 24 hour days and that is why they now run a mile from something you are still trying to promote.

There is no reason rotations and day/night cycles have to be in step, Uranus rotates once every 17hrs yet has a day/night cycle that doesn't quite match this (to put it mildly).
You seem to be living in a rather small geo-helio-centric universe, the only explanation for your obsession with linking rotations to the Sun and the day/night cycle.

I'm a bit bored with this now (once or twice a year chatting to you is enough) so bye.......

orion216

Rubeter wrote: »

There is no reason rotations and day/night cycles have to be in step, Uranus rotates once every 17hrs yet has a day/night cycle of 84 years.

,

You are truly unfortunate,you are trying to discuss the polar day/night cycle but I assure you right now that most areas of Uranus experience a single day/night cycle due to daily rotation once every 17 hours hence rotations and day/night cycles keep in step -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/


The Earth also has two types of day/night cycles,the normal one at lower latitudes which we experience daily which arises from the daily rotation of the planet 1461 times in 1461 days/4 years.

The other day/night cycle is the polar day/night cycle arising from the orbital behavior of the Earth where the polar coordinates turn in a circle to the central Sun and at the North/South poles they have roughly 6 months of daylight and 6 months of darkness.,At lower latitudes and when combined with daily rotation,the effect is the change in the seasons.The surface of Uranus experiences wild swings in hemispherical conditions between summer and winter compared to the Earth relativity mild fluctuations but day/night cycles and one rotation always keep in step.

I am sorry,the standard here is so low and that you are prepared to accept that daily rotations fall out of step with 24 hour days,that the genuine explanation of dynamics and timekeeping would look boring.The fact that the Irish education system is riddled by academics who are no better or worse than you are should concern everyone,after all,it is their children who have to sit in front of promoters of a vicious strain of empiricism that undermines the ability to reason things out properly.

You are fine,just don't know enough to see how things have changed recently but then again you simply conjured a conclusion out of thin air while giving the actual observations any real thought.It excuses you from any other involvement as who knows what other foolish conclusion you will jump to in order to maintain a 'sidereal' myth that even your own community is desperately trying to run away from.Coming back here was slightly distasteful but at least now this forum stands or dies on how it deals with the topic and I can walk away satisfied that the effort was worthwhile.

Rubeter

Before I go I will leave you with the one question you always refuse to answer.

How do you explain the 84 year 360 degree retrograde rotation of Uranus around its N/S axis that your "theory" produces? (not forgetting to explain why the stars don't shift position accordingly).

The last time I asked you you said you were "working on a paper" to show some sort of explanation for this, (I assumed that meant tearing up a piece of paper in frustration at being unable to do so), go on give it a go and give us a laugh on a rather dreary sunday morning.