The great astronomical correction

oriel36 · 13-02-2020 5:51pm

To be fair, the reference websites eventually catch up and present the outlines of the extra 24 hour day and rotation added at the end of the fourth 365 day cycle -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_29

For all the banning, the information ultimately gets processed, albeit in a less careful manner, where the present calendar represents a proportion of 1461 rotations within 4 orbital circuits or a raw fact of 365 1/4 rotations for one complete orbital circuit to a close proximity. To convert that proportion into a timekeeping format of 365 days 6 hours (again, to a close proximity) is a journey through human innovation and using specific astronomical events.

The parent observation which defines the Earth's orbital position in space as a star emerges from behind the Sun's glare to the right of our central star as a morning appearance is also the one which determines the number of times the planet turns within an orbital cycle, in the case of the Egyptians, that was the heliacal rising of Sirius -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html

The orbital motion of the Earth causes this first annual appearance of Sirius ( the star at the middle bottom of the image above ) -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

People are not brutes of the field nor are they comatose, they can work out that one 24 hour day is one rotation of the Earth yet one year is not one orbital circuit of the Earth around the Sun as the proportion of days/rotations is formatted as 365 days/rotations for three years and 366 days/rotations for 1 year.

Wikipedia is a project that morphs explanations as new information becomes available yet that can be perilous as those doing the adjusting are not often as careful or disciplined as those presenting original material. I have often presented it all as a project requiring different talents hence the only insult I know of - silence.

oriel36 · 20-02-2020 6:10pm

corny wrote: »

He livens up the forum though and the jibes at his expense (sorry Oriel) are hilarious.

Generally the jibes come from people who are shallow in their understanding of astronomy and its links to timekeeping.

Nobody ever explained the calendar framework, including the extra day/rotation next week, from the first principles based on the proportion of rotations for one orbital circuit. In this case, including the extra day/rotation, it amounts to 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits using a parent observation and to a close proximity which reduces to 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital circuit.

The Irish monument builders of 5,200 years ago would have known about the necessity of the extra day as their Solstice and Equinox alignments would have directed those ancient astronomers and builders to that conclusion.

The nearest written record comes from the Egyptian Decans and especially the first annual appearance of the star Sirius -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decan

That is astronomical poetry and nothing like the present shallow descriptions seen coming up to the extra day/rotation of February 29th, after all, the hapless solar vs sidereal people insist on 366 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

A heliacal rising is actually an orbital reference point for the Earth's motion as stars appear just far enough to the right side of the Sun to be seen as a dawn appearance and this is what the Egyptians and all other societies were witnessing. It is a new demonstration for the Earth's orbital motion using a stationary Sun regardless how the dull and sullen will sulk.

It belongs to humanity in its ancient timekeeping format and its 21st century exposition using a satellite orbiting with the Earth in determining how the stars change position to the central Sun. No citation is needed as all astronomers are interested in exploring the celestial neighbourhood and how we see things from a rotating and orbiting Earth.

Zubeneschamali · 20-02-2020 6:12pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Nobody ever explained the calendar framework, including the extra day/rotation next week, from the first principles based on the number of rotations for an orbital circuit.

Apart from every Primary school teacher in Ireland.

oriel36 · 20-02-2020 6:21pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Apart from every Primary school teacher in Ireland.

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

That is the parent observation within the 36 different heliacal risings throughout the year plus the 5 epagomenal days. Copernicus and the first heliocentric astronomers worked off the Ptolemaic framework where the Sun moves through the ecliptic in direct motion hence no transitional period to a heliacal rising never mind the 17th century curse of a Sun in a sine wave RA/Dec motion.

No primary school teacher, no secondary school teacher or University academic ever suggested the proof of the orbital motion of the Earth using the change in position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane which dynamically represents a heliacal rising of a star or, in 21st century terms, the reference for the Earth's orbital position in its circuit of the stationary Sun.

To explain the leap day/rotation requires such proof of the Earth's orbital motion.

ps200306 · 20-02-2020 9:11pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Copernicus and the first heliocentric astronomers worked off the Ptolemaic framework where the Sun moves through the ecliptic in direct motion hence no transitional period to a heliacal rising never mind the 17th century curse of a Sun in a sine wave RA/Dec motion.

The position of the rising Sun on the horizon moves sinusoidally in azimuth through the year. We don't know which were the Decan stars used by the Egyptians, but no doubt they are arrayed north and south of the celestial equator just like those of the zodiac. The Sun has been snaking its way through the heavens since way before the 17th century.

Zubeneschamali · 21-02-2020 7:12am

oriel36 wrote: »

No primary school teacher, no secondary school teacher or University academic ever suggested the proof of the orbital motion of the Earth using the change in position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane which dynamically represents a heliacal rising of a star or, in 21st century terms, the reference for the Earth's orbital position in its circuit of the stationary Sun.

Maybe you were sick that day.

oriel36 · 21-02-2020 9:29am

ps200306 wrote: »

The Sun has been snaking its way through the heavens since way before the 17th century.

I come from the Christian heritage of Copernicus and Galileo where the Sun is central and stationary while the planet has a daily and orbital cycle. To be fair, they were obligated to work off a more recent framework of Ptolemy were the Sun moved directly through the Zodiac while the planets wandered -

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

The older framework is based on the seasonal appearance of the stars so allow me to cite a beautiful expression of that observation which predates yet mirrors the more technical expression of the Egyptians -

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=KJV

Mazzaroth is a hapax legomenon indicating a society that has long since passed into history yet it's importance as a heliacal rising can still be appreciated and loved using 21st century satellite time lapse. A helical rising is precise compared to the Ptolemaic apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations for a number of reasons and specifically as an orbital marker for the Earth's position to the Solstices/Equinoxes or aphelion/perihelion.

Once again I commend you and you alone for engaging insofar as RA/Dec modeling has a valid place within astronomy. It is a matter of sorting out which is useful for timekeeping predictions as dates and precise times while another framework is productive for cause and effect or, in the modified language of that ancient
author - " can you apply dynamical ordinances to the dominion of Earth sciences ? ".

ps200306 · 21-02-2020 3:23pm

oriel36 wrote: »

I come from the Christian heritage of Copernicus and Galileo where the Sun is central and stationary while the planet has a daily and orbital cycle. To be fair, they were obligated to work off a more recent framework of Ptolemy were the Sun moved directly through the Zodiac while the planets wandered...

The older framework is based on the seasonal appearance of the stars so allow me to cite a beautiful expression of that observation which predates yet mirrors the more technical expression of the Egyptians...

A helical rising is precise compared to the Ptolemaic apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations for a number of reasons and specifically as an orbital marker for the Earth's position to the Solstices/Equinoxes or aphelion/perihelion.

This entire monologue is based on a false premise -- that there is any precise non-instrumental way of measuring the tropical year by reference to the stars. The tropical year -- the one that relates the Sun to the seasons -- is what the ancients were interested in tracking.

By the time of the Ptolemaic model, the zodiacal constellations were not relied upon (indeed, if they ever were) as markers of the seasons. The precession of the equinoxes had been known about for hundreds of years. The three great circles of the meridian, the ecliptic, and the equator were known, measured, and understood. Such was the sophistication by the time of Hipparchus -- predating Ptolemy by 300 years -- that the eccentricity of the moon's orbit had been measured according to evidence from the Antikythera mechanism.

Before the revolution in astronomical understanding that seems to have been achieved by the Ionian Greeks, there were many other less precise attempts to track the seasons. Heliacal risings suffered from a lack of suitable stars. The method was also only suitable for near-tropical latitudes, as the stars become progressively more circumpolar with increasing latitude. There may well have been an alternative technique involving the motion of Jupiter to divide the annual circle into 36 degree "decans".

Long, long before the Egyptians, the first calendars were undoubtedly lunar. It is much easier to track that other great luminary, the moon. Nevertheless, the importance of the tropical year necessitated the invention of lunisolar calendars. A very good case is made by Edward and Annie Maunder (of Maunder Minimum fame) for the use of seleniacal settings as a way of linking the two systems of measurement. The conjunction -- or lack thereof -- of the new moon with certain stars told the astronomers when it was necessary to intercalate additional months to sync the calendars. Again, by the time of the later Greeks they had actual, literal computers to work this out.

This idea that the Egyptian measurement of heliacal risings represented some great pinnacle of intuitive understanding of the annual orbit is flawed. Astronomy always has been, and by its very nature must be, intensely mathematical. That wasn't a 17th century plot, nor even a 7th century BC one ... through it took great leaps and bounds around then.

Hipparchus with his celestial globe, from Raphael's School of Athens.

oriel36 · 21-02-2020 11:06pm

ps200306 wrote: »

Heliacal risings suffered from a lack of suitable stars. The method was also only suitable for near-tropical latitudes, as the stars become progressively more circumpolar with increasing latitude.

Enclosing your perspective using circumpolar motion is far removed from a heliacal rising in orbital terms -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140620.html

The first annual appearance of the brightest star Sirius is based on the distance from observer to horizon acting like a Sun visor so as the star changes position parallel to the orbital plane due to the orbital motion of the Earth, it registered as an annual marker for the great astronomers in antiquity. It literally is a demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion and astonishing just how careful these ancient people were. The subtraction of circumpolar motion is accomplished by a satellite that is orbiting with the Earth but nor rotating with our planet.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

As Mercury will soon show up in that time lapse where the Sun is central, it will move faster than the change in position of the background stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth so two important events coincide within the same perspective, one timekeeping and one structural in respect to the planets of the solar system.

The Ptolemaic framework is not possible without the original references for the calendar framework as all astronomical predictions as dates within the Greek framework are reliant on the 365/366 calendar format. Even after 30 years it remains astonishing how those ancient watchers of the celestial arena and one in particular concluded that for any given cycle, a star will not return to the same position after the fourth cycle of 365 days -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

Knowing what I know, the Newgrange monument builders on this island in remote antiquity would have known that they could not return after 365 days and witness the Solstice alignment indefinitely as the alignment would have been lost after 20 years without the additional day/rotation that is now February 29th.

ps200306 wrote: »

This idea that the Egyptian measurement of heliacal risings represented some great pinnacle of intuitive understanding of the annual orbit is flawed. Astronomy always has been, and by its very nature must be, intensely mathematical.

In this case the fundamental principle is arithmetic - the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits which amounts to 1461 days/rotations for 4 years/orbital circuits or reduced to 365.25 days/rotations to one orbital circuit to a close proximity. Doesn't get any more or less mathematical than that yet empiricists refuse to accept the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits due to their adherence to that enclosed 17th century celestial sphere world -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140620.html

As the stars shine then so will truth shine through the shallowness of those who show themselves to lack appreciation of our astronomical and timekeeping heritage or who cannot adjust to 21st century time lapse.

oriel36 · 23-02-2020 12:48pm

The usefulness of RA/Dec as a means to predict the exact times of events within a date is not the same thing as appreciating an astronomical event in context of the structure of the solar system and the motions of the planets with particular attention to our orbital motion.

People who look safely in the direction of the Sun presently during daylight can stretch their perceptions momentarily to a stationary Sun with an faster inner planet beginning to overtake us as part of a graceful loop just as we participate in our own circuit of the Sun.

It would be particularly small if observers decided that all that matters is predictions for this plagued the original heliocentric astronomers who tried hard to mesh the dynamics of the Earth and other planets around the Sun with the predictive side of the Ptolemaic framework. The simple fact is that it could not be done as inverting the system where planetary motions are subservient to timekeeping diminishes both timekeeping and structural astronomy within and limiting
and counter-productive perspectives.

There is really little or no modeling involved with the present astronomical perspective as satellite time lapse allows observers to naturally mesh what is predicted with what is actually happening -

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Scrolling forward with the dates will predict that Venus will travel between the slower moving Earth and the central Sun soon enough along with Mercury traveling behind the Sun.

No offence to the contributor ps200306, the other thread is relatively uncomplicated and does not invite contention about the benefits or shortcomings of RA/Dec. For that purpose it is just better to let the observation stand on its own and wait until the next spectacle comes within view of the satellite. Perhaps this thread doesn't deserve the contention either with the extra day and rotation of February 29th coming up, however, this is a matter of where timekeeping and the Earth's dynamics come into a close proximity as a proportion of 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits.

ps200306 · 23-02-2020 2:26pm

oriel36 wrote: »

The usefulness of RA/Dec as a means to predict the exact times of events within a date is not the same thing as appreciating an astronomical event...

No, but you can't appreciate an event without knowing when to look for it. Computation therefore precedes observation (assuming you don't sit out under the stars all night, every night, come rain or [moon]shine).

oriel36 wrote: »

... inverting the system where planetary motions are subservient to timekeeping diminishes both timekeeping and structural astronomy...

What you call "structural astronomy" is mere uncomprehending observation. Astronomy with timekeeping and computation is science.

oriel36 wrote: »

There is really little or no modeling involved with the present astronomical perspective as satellite time lapse allows observers to naturally mesh what is predicted with what is actually happening...

Little or no modelling? You go on to provide a website with complicated software for predicting when planets will appear on the time lapse. Not to mention the awesomely complex calculations needed to position that camera where it can make your time lapse in the first place.

oriel36 wrote: »

Scrolling forward with the dates will predict that Venus will travel between the slower moving Earth and the central Sun soon enough along with Mercury traveling behind the Sun.

You mean running the model forward using complex software? Face it, without the computation you wouldn't know when to look for a transit. As it is, if you'd used more elaborate software like Stellarium you would have been able to predict the arrival of Mercury on the SOHO coronagraph to within hours or minutes.

oriel36 · 23-02-2020 7:53pm

ps200306 wrote: »

What you call "structural astronomy" is mere uncomprehending observation. Astronomy with timekeeping and computation is science.

As both a Christian and a person from the 21st century, that statement appears facile for the simple reason that the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits as 1461 rotations for 4 circuits is derived from the original observation that the first annual appearance of Sirius skips an appearance by one day/rotation after the fourth 365 day cycle. In straightforward terms - the motions of the Earth define timekeeping as days and years to a close proximity so inverting the principles using 17th century clocks is perhaps a grave injustice to the original careful astronomers and their works we inherit.

Timekeeping begins with formatting the 1461 days/rotations (including the day/rotation of February 29th) into 3 years of 365 days/rotations and one year of 366 days rotations while 'structural astronomy' recognises the raw fact of 365 1/4 rotations for one orbital circuit.

RA/Dec modeling insists on 366 1/4 rotations for each orbital circuit as proponents of that framework do not begin with first principles as the ancient astronomers once did in using the fact that Sirius will still skip a first annual appearance.

As the leap day approaches, there are no explanations which begin with the first principle that the stars move from left to right of the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane as a means to identify where the Earth is in its orbit of the Sun. All explanations try to begin with 365 /14 days for one circuit whereas the parent observation for the calendar framework can only begin with a four year cycle.

ps200306 · 24-02-2020 1:44am

oriel36 wrote: »

As both a Christian and a person from the 21st century, that statement appears facile for the simple reason that the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits as 1461 rotations for 4 circuits is derived from the original observation that the first annual appearance of Sirius skips an appearance by one day/rotation after the fourth 365 day cycle. In straightforward terms - the motions of the Earth define timekeeping as days and years to a close proximity so inverting the principles using 17th century clocks is perhaps a grave injustice to the original careful astronomers and their works we inherit.

This is patently wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Firstly, you already pointed out yourself that the builders of Newgrange knew that the tropical year could not be divided into an integral number of days. That knowledge predates the first written records of astronomy by 2,000 years. So to say that the heliacal rising of Sirius is the "original" observation is unfounded. We don't know what the original observations are as they stretch back far into prehistory -- at least to the Neolithic and the dawn of agriculture if not way beyond.

Secondly, it is facile to refer to "orbital circuits". There was no established connection between the heavenly motions and any sort of unified cosmology before 600 BC, and it was several hundred years later that cosmology took proper shape. Even then there was a conflict between geocentric and heliocentric models, though the available evidence favoured the former. The pre-Ionian astronomers noted regularities in the skies but did not connect them (that we know of) to any model involving orbits of the Earth around the Sun or vice versa.

Thirdly, just because the tropical year was useful for tracking the seasons does not mean that it is the most fundamental or important observation. It is no less fundamental to observe that the Earth makes 366¼ (approx) sidereal rotations in a tropical year. Given our modern understanding, which was not available to any previous civilisation, it depends on your purpose.

Our truly modern understanding of the solar system has only been developed painstakingly over hundreds of years since Kepler. It would have baffled earlier astronomers, including Copernicus -- not only because of observational advances but because of the development of the scientific mindset. Aesthetic intuitions such as circular orbits reflecting the perfection of the heavens just didn't cut any ice any more.

Therefore to refer to the "motions of the Earth" as defining timekeeping to Egyptian astronomers is anachronistic. The diurnal rotation of the heavens was not connected to any property of the Earth until the early classical period. The Decans and heliacal rising of Sirius appear in writings of the 12th dynasty in Egypt, and in coffin inscriptions somewhat earlier than that (c. 2000 BC). That is 1500 years before any cosmology involving orbits and a rotating spherical Earth.

This fantastical connection and continuity between heliacal risings and the orbiting SOHO spacecraft is purely in your head.

oriel36 · 24-02-2020 9:12am

ps200306 wrote: »

This fantastical connection and continuity between heliacal risings and the orbiting SOHO spacecraft is purely in your head.

Most of what you write is talking down the careful observations of astronomers in antiquity, however, we still use their system where an extra day and rotation with all its effects (daylight/darkness, temperature fluctuations, ect) completes 4 orbital circuits and the 1461 rotations enclosed within those 4 cycles. This breaks down to 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit to a close proximity so, framed as a proportion with cause and effect included, the nearest timekeeping gets to the actual motions of the Earth is 1461 days to 4 years mirroring 1461 rotations to 4 orbital cycles.

The SOHO Lasco 3 camera orbiting with the Earth shows how the stars change position to the stationary Sun parallel to the orbital plane -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

It means that observers are obligated to refer the change in position of the stars to the central Sun rather than circumpolar risings from horizon to horizon. It is a sign of development into the actual world of 21st century astronomy to adjust to what the orbital motion of the Earth and the central Sun dictates.

The extra day/rotation next Saturday makes up the orbital distance lost over the last 4 years using daily rotation and the 24 hour day as a gauge. From its beginning on March 1st 2016, in a timekeeping format, the year of 365 days/rotations represents that through March 1st 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 the gap between the timekeeping year based on 365 days/rotations and the actual orbital circuit of 365 1/4 rotations grew by one extra rotation across 4 years. February 29th resets the relationship between the timekeeping year and the actual position of the Earth to the Solstices and Equinoxes back to a close proximity. The 24 hours of February 29th therefore represents the 1/4 day orbital distance lost with each year of 365 days and, with some effort, should be enjoyed so long as the observer doesn't try to force timekeeping to dictate the framework as current explanations of the leap year tend to do.

Readers were asked to take it for granted that our astronomical ancestors didn't know about the motions of the Earth but were concerned about keeping their festivals fixed to the Equinox and Solstice points as they had been doing for many thousands of years. Translating their timekeeping framework into planetary dynamics from first principles can be delicate and intricate but such is astronomy and timekeeping.

ps200306 · 24-02-2020 2:30pm

oriel36 wrote: »

we still use their system where an extra day and rotation with all its effects (daylight/darkness, temperature fluctuations, ect) completes 4 orbital circuits and the 1461 rotations enclosed within those 4 cycles.

Their system measured the tropical year. They knew nothing about orbital circuits. They also knew nothing about precession of the equinoxes. If they wanted to predict the Nile flooding from the heliacal rising of Sirius today they'd be sorely disappointed.

oriel36 wrote: »

The SOHO Lasco 3 camera ... means that observers are obligated to refer the change in position of the stars to the central Sun rather than circumpolar risings from horizon to horizon. It is a sign of development into the actual world of 21st century astronomy to adjust to what the orbital motion of the Earth and the central Sun dictates.

It shows nothing that hasn't been known to every amateur astronomer for 400 years.

oriel36 wrote: »

Readers were asked to take it for granted that our astronomical ancestors didn't know about the motions of the Earth but were concerned about keeping their festivals fixed to the Equinox and Solstice points as they had been doing for many thousands of years. Translating their timekeeping framework into planetary dynamics from first principles can be delicate and intricate but such is astronomy and timekeeping.

Our astronomical ancestors had much more practical concerns, mainly the propitious times for activities relating to food production. There are no first principles by which planetary dynamics can be definitively inferred from naked eye observations. Some of the planets dim as they get further away in their orbits, but Venus does not because of its increasing phase which cannot be seen with the naked eye. The stars show no apparent annual parallax which is impossible unless they are at distances inconceivable to the ancient mind. The Ptolemaic system of epicycles is clunky, but the Copernican system doesn't fix it until you know about elliptical orbits. Their discovery required Brahe's technology to make the detailed observations and Kepler's maths to interpret them.

Additionally, you need scientific theories of inertia and gravity to explain why the Earth appears to be a stable centre of rotation for the cosmos. And you need to ditch hypotheses based on aesthetics, such as fire tending naturally from the imperfect sublunary sphere toward the Empyrean heaven (Coelum Empireum). For all these reasons, the thread of connection you want to draw between bronze age astronomy and satellite observation is naive and simplistic. To then repeat it hundreds of times is a sign of an unhealthy fixation. As a Christian, maybe you'd like to join me in avoiding these pages for Lent?

oriel36 · 24-02-2020 8:40pm

ps200306 wrote: »

Our astronomical ancestors had much more practical concerns, mainly the propitious times for activities relating to food production. There are no first principles by which planetary dynamics can be definitively inferred from naked eye observations.

Without descending into contention, the number of rotations enclosed within 4 orbital circuits is based on the ability to count and the fact that the star Sirius will skip a first annual appearance by one day/rotation after the fourth 365 annual cycle as it emerges from behind the Sun's glare (should be easy to envisage along with the SOHO time lapse)-

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

That naked eye observation can be easily translated into planetary dynamics provided that the first principles are adhered to. Less proficient people are inclined to introduce complications where none are required but then again they can be corrected once they see the bigger picture.

" ...although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles." Copernicus,
De Revolutionibus

In this case, the foundation for timekeeping relies on a stationary Sun, the orbital motion of the Earth and the change in position of the background stars parallel to the orbital plane in response to that orbital motion -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Despite our differences, you seem to be quite a pleasant man so don't give into comments that distract from the topic at hand. People are needed to work on the framework where the stars no longer move in circumpolar motion but are applied to the central Sun in their left to right motion which the great astronomers in antiquity witnessed as a transition from twilight to dawn appearance. If you choose to believe astronomers have known this principle for 400 years then it is unlikely that all the other major modifications will take place with care and consideration even if the issue of priority is not an issue with me.

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 6:07am

Today closes out the 1461 days/rotations corresponding to four annual circuits of the Sun that began March 1st 2016, at least to a close proximity. It represents the great human timekeeping framework where the seamless transition of one rotation to the next in tandem with the weekday is formatted around the orbital motion of the Earth.

The point of departure is the parent observation that the Earth returns to roughly the same destination in space after 1461 days/rotations which are formatted as 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations. It also represents the raw fact that the planet turns 365 1/4 times within one orbital circuit.

The day/night cycle anchored to noon maintains cause and effect between one rotation and the distance traveled by the Earth during that period. In a non-leap year, the orbital distance of 6 hours is omitted naturally as rotations are used as a gauge but after 4 circuits of the Sun, this will amount to roughly 24 hours so the calendar plays catch-up to the Earth's orbital position in space by adding an additional day and rotation.

Of course it all comes down to how the first annual appearance of the star Sirius provided an astronomical positional marker for the Earth in its journey around the Sun. Without the recognition that the stars change position from left to right of the central Sun, the deficient explanations for this important day in astronomy and timekeeping will continue by starting off with the raw fact and trying to build a narrative that way, something which cannot be done. There are others who adhere to the primacy of the fictional 'sidereal day' and attribute 1465 rotations to this specific day but they can be ignored by virtue that they try to bypass cause and effect between the day/night cycle and one rotation.

Zubeneschamali · 29-02-2020 7:07am

oriel36 wrote: »

The point of departure is the parent observation that the Earth returns to roughly the same destination in space after 1461 days/rotations

The whole solar system including the Earth will have moved about 70 billion kilometers in the direction of Hydra during that time, so nope.

29-02-2020 7:38am

Eh, are ye 100% certain you're not debating with an AI (with emphasis on the A rather than the I).

Zubeneschamali · 29-02-2020 7:55am

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, are ye 100% certain you're not debating with an AI (with emphasis on the A rather than the I).

You can't debate with Gerald, but sometimes when you correct one of his errors he stops repeating it.

For example, he no longer refers to quadratures of Venus.

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 9:45am

It sometimes happens that the most intricate reasoning requires those with the higher levels of appreciation as with music and nature. In this case, for the purposes of knowing why the planet turns 365 1/4 times per orbit or where the foundations of timekeeping come from, it all begins with a parent astronomical observation -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

All leap day explanations, other than this one, begin with an impossible point of departure but yet again, it takes a more appreciative person to work through the details as this day and rotation of the Earth closes out 4 orbital circuits as the 1461 day/rotation.

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 10:30am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You can't debate with Gerald, but sometimes when you correct one of his errors he stops repeating it.

You introduced something inappropriate as the explanation requires only the proportion of rotations enclosed within four annual circuits of the Sun and how it is derived from an exquisite astronomical observation in antiquity. It was included in the previous post so should have been clear for those who genuinely wish to put February 29th in context -

"Of course it all comes down to how the first annual appearance of the star Sirius provided an astronomical positional marker for the Earth in its journey around the Sun."

Dealing with inane comments or graffiti only invites more of the same from the forum's bouncers/moderators so easier to deal with those who actually have genuine objections.

Esel · 29-02-2020 6:57pm

Will you be taking a 4 year break now that Feb 29th is nearly over? Please say yes.

29-02-2020 9:13pm

Blimey, having stumbled upon this thread, and it being a subject of interest to me, I just wanted to say that I don’t think a day is added every four years. IIRC, for it to be a leap year at the start of a new century, the number has to be divisible by 400. Hence, 2000 was a leap year, 1900 was not, and neither will 2100 be one.

Incidentally, I have come across a large number of words I had never heard in my 60+ years on this “small blue dot”. Wow, as some might say

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 10:30pm

Esel wrote: »

Will you be taking a 4 year break now that Feb 29th is nearly over? Please say yes.

You know what Bob Marley said - " the people who are trying to make the world worse never take a day off and neither do I".

The significance of this day, this day/night cycle and the rotation behind it represents a proportion of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 to one orbital circuit.

The people making this world worse insist on 1465 rotations for the same four orbital circuits hence can't deal with the astronomical event where Sirius , in changing position from left to right of the central Sun due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth, constitutes an orbital marker with its first dawn appearance and subsequently the number of rotations within an orbital circuit.

Zubeneschamali · 29-02-2020 10:51pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I
Incidentally, I have come across a large number of words I had never heard in my 60+ years on this “small blue dot”. Wow, as some might say

Fair warning: you are not the only one in this thread who does not understand those words, and at least one of the others will never admit as much.

But you can learn, as long as you don't take anything here as gospel.

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 11:05pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fair warning: you are not the only one in this thread who does not understand those words, and at least one of the others will never admit as much.

But you can learn, as long as you don't take anything here as gospel.

The significance of February 29th covers the 1461 days and rotations back to March 1st 2016 and this owes its existence to a specific astronomical event using proof that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Then they are the hapless who lack the insight which puts the extra rotation in context of the 6 hours of rotation annually which corresponds also to 6 hours of orbital motion hence the extra day and rotation naturally picks up the 24 hours orbital distance and motion lost over the previous four cycles of 365 days.

Astronomers are a certain type, it requires a spark of inspiration to appreciate the celestial arena and dynamics as a perceptive quality whereas others just conjure things up in the absence of that perception like the ridiculous 'solar vs sidereal' fiction -

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1904PA.....12..649B/0000649.000.html

Some people acquire the perceptive state of astronomers and astronomy with humility whereas other are lost to radicalisation of those who are not astronomers and try impose their own version of motion and structure like that awful version above. In other words, some people will enjoy how the daily and orbital motions of the Earth dictate the calendar framework from first principles based on certain observations and so long as the observer doesn't oppose the flow of that narrative, they should go on to develop their own appreciation from different angles.

ps200306 · 01-03-2020 3:18am

oriel36 wrote: »

...the ridiculous 'solar vs sidereal' fiction...

You really, really have a hard time comprehending different frames of reference, don't you? It's especially ironic since the one you are obsessed with fixes the sun in position but sets the entire rest of the universe off on a merry annual waltz. What's more, it has a drunken conductor who speeds the whirling stars 10% above the average tempo in January, and slows them down in July.

The sidereal frame fixes the stars, so that only the sun goes on an uneven accelerating and decelerating whirl. It seems much more organised to me, but then there's no point choosing favorites as both are fictions. On the grandest scale everything other than the Hubble flow is a peculiar motion.

oriel36 · 01-03-2020 10:20am

ps200306 wrote: »

You really, really have a hard time comprehending different frames of reference, don't you?

That 'frames of reference' lingo is inherited from the early 20th century but its real origin is back in the late 17th century where the real problems arose and further back to the objections raised around the Galileo affair where the validity between the Ptolemaic framework and heliocentric system was front and centre.

This thread is organised around the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits hence there is no choice when it comes to discerning the parent observation where the first annual appearance of a star fixes the Earth's orbital position in space in its journey around the Sun. Without the additional day and rotation, it would be impossible to make sense of the time lapse where the stars move from an evening to morning appearance or more specifically from left to right of the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

As the Earth varies in orbital speed, the change in position of the background stars is uneven so why adopt a rotating celestial sphere of stars directly with daily rotation where there is no reference for a variable change in position of stars from horizon to horizon ! -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

If you cannot adopt the more productive framework where there is no circumpolar motion as provided by the Lasco C3 camera tracking with the Earth's orbital motion then , unfortunately, it is you and your colleagues who have difficulties with reference frameworks. I was prepared to state that the RA/Dec celestial sphere is useful for predicting astronomical events as dates and times within the 24 hour day but meaningless when discerning the structure of the solar system or the wider universe but most disruptive when relating cause and effect between planetary dynamics and Earth sciences.

What you call 'frames of reference' is really a creation of Victorian mathematicians relying on the original and more destructive approach of Newton in respect to the use of timekeeping and astronomy -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

There is no harm peeling back the layers of damage mathematicians inflicted on astronomy over the last few centuries but then again it is not attacking people as they are unfamiliar with this history. As far as I am concerned, it is more important to work with contemporaries so long as they have not been railroaded into accepting ideologies from different eras like cheerleaders as opposed to genuine innovators who can work with contemporary imaging and information.

01-03-2020 10:37am

Right. I’m going to devote some time to reading this thread thoroughly, and trying to figure out what’s actually being said, and why.

The great astronomical correction

Comments