On Jan 25, 12:16*pm, "Androcles" wrote:

Phooey!
* * * 42581509225984

* * * divided by 13554115355257

but don't tell Gerald.

I know of 355/113 or 3 16/113, and remember 3.14159 26535 89793, but
that's all...

John Savard

On Jan 25, 7:25*am, oriel36 wrote:

Explaining observations like these requires building up a picture of
the motions behind it but sadly in this era,even when you can see
sunrise from space and a rotating Earth as the cause,the dominant view
is that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days hence any explanations
you may receive are simply assertions without substance.

That "dominant view" is precisely what is necessary for building up an
accurate picture of the motions behind the Equation of Time.

The Equation of Time is a variance in the 24 hour natural noon cycle.
If that cycle is the direct consequence of variations in the speed of
the Earth's rotation, there is nothing to explain - it just happens
that way for some mysterious reason.

An Earth that rotates at a steady, uniform speed - that would not
change how it rotates unless some force pushes on it - is the starting-
point we need to explain the Equation of Time physically. It is only
by viewing the Earth's rotational motion in relation to the distant
stars that we obtain such a rotation - with a period of 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds.

Then we can see that the Equation of Time results from the Earth's
annual orbit - which, combined with a rotation of such a period,
produces a day/night cycle that averages to 24 hours - not being a
perfect circle and in the plane of the Equator. Those two effects mean
that the direction to the Sun from the Earth does not advance
uniformly over the course of a year, so the one rotation that is lost,
not becoming a day, is taken away at slightly unequal parts at
different times of the year.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 12:16 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

Phooey!
42581509225984

divided by 13554115355257

but don't tell Gerald.

I know of 355/113 or 3 16/113, and remember 3.14159 26535 89793, but
that's all...

John Savard
============================================
I don't remember any of them, I remember how to FIND them.
97591
31065

3.141509738

1043
332

3.141566265


3.14 = 3 + 0.14

0.14 = 1/7.1428571428571428571428571428571

7.14 = 7+ 0.14

Therefore
3.14 = 3 + 1/(7 + 1/(7 + 1/(7+....)))

On Jan 25, 7:01*pm, "Andrex scribbled:

Years ago I did have the misfortune to encounter a moron that
insisted pi was 22/7. Same fixation on integers. Nothing can be
done for them, they are indoctrinated at an early age and just
as convinced in Santa Claus.

When I were a lad.. us poor kids could only afford 22/7 and then it
were only on Tuesdays and Thursdays in leap years. It were only the
dark, satanic mill owner's kids what got to use 3.142 like they owned
the bløødy number. Which they did!

We were so bløødy poor we couldn't afford to believe in Father
Christmas. So we worked downt mines every single Christmas Day until
we were eleven and a half and never dreamt of ever seeing change from
a thrupenny bit. At least not in us lifetimes. So think on, mister
high and mighty!

On Jan 25, 6:00*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/25/12 6:14 AM, Science Fan wrote:



What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? *TIA.

* *The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
* *sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
* *the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

What you are trying to do is dump daily and orbital motions into right
ascension which is how they tried to explain the Equation of Time back
in the 18th century,even then there is no such thing as a wandering
Sun analemma as they tried to fit the Sun's motion into the clockwork
based Ra/Dec system creating things like a 'mean solar day in right
ascension' whereas today they attach daily rotation directly to right
ascension and do a dance around noon.Nevil Maskelyne,yeah him,goes
through the motions of this and at least I have some regard how they
are trying to square away 'sidereal time' with the Equation of Time .

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...x.x.5 4.x.344

Modern imaging does away with these complicated and contrived spiels
by accounting for the natural variations in the noon cycle using two
separate rotations to the central Sun and specifically using the
direct observations of Uranus as a gauge for the combination of daily
and orbital cycles which produce the observation from a turning
Earth.The South to North motion of daily rotation of Uranus combines
with its East to West orbital turning to the central Sun so more or
less the same effect accounts for our planet's variations and in doing
so modifies the explanation for the seasons,but that is another day's
work -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

The idea of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is only a recent thing,the
guys in the 17th and 18th century would never have admitted to such a
hideous imbalance even as they were trying to model planetary motion
using the clock and the human devised calendar system.

You see Sam,however you may regard these men 300 years ago and they
were dead serious about what they were doing,they did not have the
information that we have today as we can look at the Earth from space
and draw conclusions or with detailed images of other planets,the
picture of planetary dynamics gets assembled by cross referencing
which is a relatively easy thing to do once you become accustomed to
the process.There is nothing stopping any individual from picking out
the reason for the variations in the natural noon cycles by extracting
the dual motions to the central Sun from the sequence of images above
and have enough sense to know that it is a major modification.

On Jan 25, 12:18*pm, oriel36 wrote:

What you are trying to do is dump daily and orbital motions into right
ascension...

No, not correct...

... they tried to fit the Sun's motion into the clockwork
based Ra/Dec system creating things like a 'mean solar day in right
ascension' whereas today they attach daily rotation directly to right
ascension...

No, not even close. You have been told umpteen times that sidereal
rotation and sidereal time have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun.
NOTHING. Sidereal rotation is measured ONLY wrt to the fixed stars.
There is no sidereal morning, noon or night.

The idea of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is only a recent thing,the
guys in the 17th and 18th century would never have admitted to such a
hideous imbalance...

Swing and a miss, strike 3...

"Talking with you is sort of the conversational equivalent of an out
of body experience."
- Calvin & Hobbes

\Paul A

"Science Fan" wrote in message
...

What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.


That's a good question. The incremental change each day
is not uniform between the solstices by the way. The daily
change gets smaller as you get closer to a solstice.

I believe 'obliquity of the ecliptic', or 'axial tilt', or
'lateral offset' is the best I can do.

In the old days before precise measurements, I think
they used to call it 'the precession of the equinoxes'.
But now precession has a very different meaning.

My mentor, one of the greatest naturalists of the nineteenth
century, asked this very question when taking yet
another shot at the stupidity of the new-fangled
objective scientific perspective.


Oh, some scholar! Oh, some sailor!
Oh, some wise man from the skies!
Please to tell a little pilgrim
Where the place called morning lies!



By Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)


The contradiction is of course in trying to precisely
define that which constantly changes.



s

palsing to oriel:
No, not even close. You have been told umpteen times that sidereal
rotation and sidereal time have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun....

You know that he's been told umpteen times (closer to sixty-leben,
probably) and /you/ still don't get it?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:25 am, oriel36 wrote:

Explaining observations like these requires building up a picture of
the motions behind it but sadly in this era,even when you can see
sunrise from space and a rotating Earth as the cause,the dominant
view is that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days hence any
explanations you may receive are simply assertions without substance.

That "dominant view" is precisely what is necessary for building up an
accurate picture of the motions behind the Equation of Time.

The Equation of Time is a variance in the 24 hour natural noon cycle.
If that cycle is the direct consequence of variations in the speed of
the Earth's rotation, there is nothing to explain - it just happens
that way for some mysterious reason.

An Earth that rotates at a steady, uniform speed - that would not
change how it rotates unless some force pushes on it - is the
starting- point we need to explain the Equation of Time physically.
It is only by viewing the Earth's rotational motion in relation to
the distant stars that we obtain such a rotation - with a period of
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

Then we can see that the Equation of Time results from the Earth's
annual orbit - which, combined with a rotation of such a period,
produces a day/night cycle that averages to 24 hours - not being a
perfect circle and in the plane of the Equator. Those two effects mean
that the direction to the Sun from the Earth does not advance
uniformly over the course of a year, so the one rotation that is lost,
not becoming a day, is taken away at slightly unequal parts at
different times of the year.

John Savard

Equation of Time is the result of a combination of the elliptical orbit and
the inclination of the axis of rotation to the plane of Earth's orbit. If
the orbit were perfectly circular, there would still be Eq of T with a
variation that looks like a double sine wave when plotted.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Jan 26, 7:12*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:25 am, oriel36 wrote:

Explaining observations like these requires building up a picture of
the motions behind it but sadly in this era,even when you can see
sunrise from space and a rotating Earth as the cause,the dominant
view is that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days hence any
explanations you may receive are simply assertions without substance.

That "dominant view" is precisely what is necessary for building up an
accurate picture of the motions behind the Equation of Time.

The Equation of Time is a variance in the 24 hour natural noon cycle.
If that cycle is the direct consequence of variations in the speed of
the Earth's rotation, there is nothing to explain - it just happens
that way for some mysterious reason.

An Earth that rotates at a steady, uniform speed - that would not
change how it rotates unless some force pushes on it - is the
starting- point we need to explain the Equation of Time physically.
It is only by viewing the Earth's rotational motion in relation to
the distant stars that we obtain such a rotation - with a period of
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

Then we can see that the Equation of Time results from the Earth's
annual orbit - which, combined with a rotation of such a period,
produces a day/night cycle that averages to 24 hours - not being a
perfect circle and in the plane of the Equator. Those two effects mean
that the direction to the Sun from the Earth does not advance
uniformly over the course of a year, so the one rotation that is lost,
not becoming a day, is taken away at slightly unequal parts at
different times of the year.

John Savard

Equation of Time is the result of a combination of the elliptical orbit and
the inclination of the axis of rotation to the plane of Earth's orbit.

This doesn't work,at the December solstice when the Sun is scribing
out its largest arc at the latitude of Sydney,it it scribing its
shortest arc at London and as the natural noon correction is valid for
all latitudes on the planet where the Sun is seen at noon,declination
plays no role in determining Natural noon nor in the conversion to the
AM/PM cycle of the 24 hour day.

Is it so difficult to conceive that the total length of the natural
noon cycles is a global effect and not a hemispherical one ?.All it
requires is a grounding observation that the total length of noon
cycles vary,daily and orbital rotations are involved and the answer is
pretty much there.The Hubble time lapse footage shows the South to
North daily rotation of Uranus and simultaneously it East to West
orbital component,call it a quasi-rotation if you like,but the planet
does turn to the central Sun with a single orbital rotation coincident
with the orbital period.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/




If the orbit were perfectly circular, there would still be Eq of T with a
variation that looks like a double sine wave when plotted.


The Earth's orbital speed varies and with it the orbital component,as
the planet unevenly turns to the Sun effects the total length of the
noon cycle but at least we are keeping the dual motions of the Earth
fixed to the central Sun where they belong.It is almost a decade ago
when Schlyter stuck his neck out on this topic and was corrected yet
in that decade imaging power and more information has emerged that I
could't have posted back then such as the East to West turning of
Uranus when allied with the South to North daily rotation effectively
affirms the issue to a certainty -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg






--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)