The fate of the Earth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Partially crystalline materials
Next: Speciation Process: Excrement Color Skin Proven Harmful (Poverty, Crime and Disease)
From: dow on 18 Sep 2009 17:24 On Sep 18, 3:26 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Further evidence in favour of Mach's principle comes from cosmology. > > If rotational motion is purely relative > > It isn't. Look up "Foucalt pendulum". > > Mark L. Fergerson Gyroscopes are nicer. Sure. These devices show that the earth is turning relative to some *absolute* zero of rotation. But Mach suggested, and a lot of people agree, that this zero is *defined by* the universe as a whole. The universe is not rotating because that's the definition of "not rotating". Somehow, and nobody is sure how, the universe as a whole affects our local space so that a gyroscope will point at some given distant galaxy regardless of the rotation of the earth beneath it. If Mach was right, and the jury is still out on that, then in a sense rotation *is relative*. It's relative to the universe as a whole. The zero of rotation is embedded in the universe, and has been ever since the Big Bang. dow
From: oriel36 on 18 Sep 2009 17:44 On Sep 18, 9:08 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 15, 12:58 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 7:49 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 15, 3:32 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 14, 11:06 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The bottom line is that there's no fixed reference anywhere against > > > > > > > which to measure the Earth's rotation period; it isn't even measurable > > > > > > > against itself, though its absolute rotation _rate_ is measurable. > > > > > > > Ummm.. There is (or at least there is thought to be) an absolutely non- > > > > > > rotating frame of reference, independent of observations of stars, > > > > > > etc.. It's the frame in which there are no centrifugal or Coriolis > > > > > > forces. Theoretically, the absolute speed of rotation of he earth is > > > > > > its speed relative to this frame. > > > > > > No, there's no such external reference. > > > > > > Besides, I said its _period_ (length of a day) is not independently > > > > > measurable. > > > > > Grow up for godness sake and think like a man. > > > > You are an arrogant prick. You must be French. > > > > You asked what you apparently assumed was a simple question (it > > > wasn't) and I gave you the most honest answer I know. That evidently > > > wasn't good enough to satisfy you. Too bad for you. > > > > > The Earth , as a sphere, will rotate at different speeds from a > > > > maximum speed at the Equator down to zero at the geographical > > > > poles.The values for an observer at the Equator is 1669.8 km for every > > > > 15 degrees of rotation covering the complete 40,075 km circumference > > > > through 360 degrees,at 60 degrees latitude,the rotational speed is 837 > > > > km for every 15 degrees/1 hour and the same for all latitudes in the > > > > table - > > > > >http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables... > > > > > There is a cause and effect of different latitudinal speeds which > > > > would be fairly easy to acknowledge in an era of air travel where most > > > > people are aware of the rapid transition from daylight to darkness > > > > the further towards the Equator and obversely,the longer twilights > > > > experienced towards the geographical poles.At any given moment,a > > > > location at the Equator is transiting at 1669.8 km per hour through > > > > the circle of illumination generating a swift transition to darkness > > > > while at 60 degrees latitude,the transition is longer due to the speed > > > > of 837 km or 833 km less than the Equator speed. > > > > Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I know all that. > > > Good !,that makes you my first attentive student now go teach the rest > > what you just comprehended. > > I didn't "just" comprehend it, I certainly am not your "student", > and everyone else already knows it as well. I said as much when I > described the three kinds of "day". Weren't you paying attention? > You don't realize that the latitudinal variations n twilight ,with the most rapid transit from daylight to darkness happening at the Equator,is the first formal proof of cause/effect due to daily rotation through 360 degrees with the planet rotating at 1669.8 km per hour at the Equator and an arbitrary 837 km per hour at latitude 60 degrees.Once you have cause and effect with the accompanying speeds per hour you are now operating from the perspective of daily rotation once in 24 hours and if you are not comfortable with the term 'student' then so be it,behave like a man and promote what is essentially one of the easiest astronomical cause/terrestrial effect that I can think of. > My point is that you cannot measure the Earth's rotation _period_ > without using an external reference, and THEY ALL MOVE. > Grow up all of you,it is not 100 years ago,the power of modern imaging and humanity's ventures into space gets rid of that fusty 'fixed stars' hoopla,we can look down on a rotating Earth and treat it like with the magnificence it deserves - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmmv0gOfWw Work with the Earth's daily rotation as it moves through the circle of illumination and come up with the latitudinal variations in twilight and you won't have to worry about insisting on external references,if you have that far and comprehend the cause and effect you are already working with definite latitudinal speeds from a maximum at the Equator and diminishing to 0 at the poles. > > > > A reasonable > > > > person,and there are not many at the moment,accepts the cause and > > > > effect with the values reflecting rotation through 360 degrees in 24 > > > > hours and then teaches their students or kids properly. > > > > 360 degrees _measured against what_? You _cannot_ measure the > > > rotation of the Earth against itself only. > > > The transition from daylight to darkness > > You cannot measure the rotation of the Earth against the sun because > IT MOVES. > Who are you or anyone else to place limitations on interpretation,at any given moment,a location at the Equator is turning through 1669.8 km for every 15 degrees of rotation and a full 40,075 km rotation through 360 degrees and consequently in 24 hours. > > > You appear to be _assuming_ that the solar day is the only "proper" > > > day. That's all very nice, but it varies through the year and is > > > therefore a poor standard. It is also completely useless for aiming > > > astronomical telescopes. > > > Grow up for goodness sake > > Don't just deliver vague attempts at insult, contradict me with facts, > if you can. > Insults indeed !,you insult yourselves and it really takes no effort from me,there is a chance one or two might wake up from this empirical snoozing long enough to see Huygens or Harrison explain the technical details contained in the 24 hour clock and its relationship to planetary geometry organised around its rotational characteristics. http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false Page 90-91 explains it all from the person who come up with the technology for the first accurate watches based on rotation in 24 hours. > > > > > > > >> Its _rate_ (or speed, if you prefer) _is_ independently > > > > > measurable (say in a hermetically sealed room) with a Foucalt > > > > > pendulum. Why a Foucalt pendulum doesn't exactly measure the length of > > > > > a day is complicated and I won't try to explain; I'll refer you here > > > > > instead: > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum > > > > > > To say we've measured its period, its rotation must be timed against > > > > > an _external_ measurement point, but they all _move_. That's why I put > > > > > quotes around "fixed" stars. > > > > > What you do is quarantine the 'sidereal time' concept as it represents > > > > a catastrophic lapse of reasoning which tries to force right ascension > > > > into daily rotation as an independent motion.The values which explain > > > > latitudinal variations in twilight or the transition through the > > > > circle of illumination via daily rotational dynamics require definite > > > > values which the 'sidereal time' junk cannot hope to supply insofar as > > > > an observer at the Equator turns through a 40,075 km distance every 24 > > > > hours or 1669.8 km per hour or 111.32 km every 4 minutes . > > > > You appear to have some bizarre fixation on Earthly measurements of > > > time. That's all very nice for you, but there _are_ other people, with > > > other interests on the planet. Some of them are astronomers, who need > > > to be able to aim their telescopes properly. > > > I am considered a madman for promoting the rotation of the Earth once > > in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour > > Measured against what, the sun? IT MOVES! > > Also, the _rate_ of rotation of the Earth IS NOT constant; it varies > over many time scales hence your claim is falsified. > Once you have an idea in your head and especially that 'sidereal time' junk,it appears impossible for you to think otherwise.The 24 hour day/ calendar system was created in antiquity,the average 24 hour day itself is an average cycle based on the natural noon reference,no more or less.but the Equation of Time correction allows the 24 hour cycle to represent an average of natural noons over the course of an annual cycle thereby allowing you the facility of having the 24 hours of Friday turn into the 24 hours of Saturday.Am I going to fast for you or do you wish to take it further ? As the annual cycle is represented by the return of a star to a meridian in 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes as calculated using average 24 hour days,it allowed the ancients to create a linear progression of years out of a raw daily and annual cycle where the fractional difference of the equable day/calendar system gets corrected back to the raw orbital cycle every Feb 29th of the fourth year. Now,I know that the system would have had to come from the mind of a single individual in antiquity and the references he worked with are natural noon/Sun for the daily cycle and the stellar background for the annual cycle and the calendar system whereas you lot have the whole thing backwards. > You are indeed insane, right up there with the Einstein-haters. > You call me insane for promoting the sprawling history and technical details behind rotation in 24 hours but you cannot give me a single instance before Flamsteed which hitched daily rotation to the background stars. > > That is extremely > > > > difficult to do using only the solar day; there are a slew of > > > correction factors that would need to be applied, and they change > > > through the year. For that matter, they change with the centuries. The > > > length of the solar day, the length of time it takes the Sun to > > > reappear at a given maximum height above the horizon, increases with > > > time. The day (all of them, actually) is getting longer and will > > > continue to do so. GET USED TO IT. > > > You are arguing against planetary geometry/geography which states that > > the Equatorial Earth rotates through 1669.8 km every 15 degrees and > > its entire 40,075 km circumference in 24 hours > > You keep asserting that as if you have some evidence. What is it? > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg There you go,use the spine which connects the geographical poles as a substitute for the circle of illumination and turn the globe 15 degrees and you will see it covers a geographical distance of 1669.8 km at the Equator and a full 40,075 km circumference through 360 degrees where 15 degrees represents 1 hour difference regardless of latitude. > > > > > > > > > > However, there is no existing way in which this speed can be measured > > > > > > to more than a few digits of precision, so for practical purposes we > > > > > > have to use the "fixed" stars, even though we know they are not really > > > > > > fixed. > > > > > > Horsefeathers. > > > > > Horsefeathers you say !,take off that late 17th century powdered wig > > > > and start thinking like a man or be left behind.You do not need to be > > > > too smart to appreciate how the planet ,as a sphere, rotates through > > > > 360 degrees at different speeds with definite values for each > > > > latitudinal location with definite effects following from basic > > > > planetary facts of dimensions and rotational characteristics so drop > > > > that nonsense of the 'fixed stars' and a really,really stupid > > > > 'sidereal time' reasoning. > > > > Yes, horsefeathers. There is NO non-moving external standard against > > > which to measure the Earth's rotation period. > > > > There is no way to measure the Earth's rotation period on the > > > surface of the Earth, without using an external reference. > > > > That's all there is to it. The solar day is as arbitrary as the > > > others. They each have their uses and each is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE > > > for other uses. > > > > Nobody cares about your idea of "smart" and "stupid", or what you > > > think it means to be "a man". You have your fixation; enjoy it. > > > No,humanity has a holocaust > > I suspect that word does not mean what you think it does. > > > which sees people who do not know their > > limitations and enforce contrived speculative junk on the wider > > population under the guise of 'astronomy'. > > What are you talking about? The "wider population" doesn't care > about astronomy, it cares about filling its belly with cheap booze, > and killing anyone who is (or might be) in any way different. > > > It is not an understatement > > but rather an unfortunate fact that even the Earth's shape which is > > contained in the following set of geodetic values is lost so that we > > literally exist,at least in matters relating to planetary > > dynamics,structural astronomy and terrestrial effects at the level of > > flat Earthers,this is no exaggeration for what people can wilfully > > ignore common sense and all the history of > > timekeeping,clocks,longitude and planetary geography/geometry. > > >http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables... > > You are very good at producing disjointed, rambling sentences. Did > the foregoing have a point? > > > Now,remind me how long it takes the Earth to turn once. > > I have already told you that there is no way to measure it except > against moving external references, but you aren't really interested. > You'd rather rant about some supposed vague conspiracy theory of > yours. > As far as I am concerned it is a matter of too many intellectual weaklings who cannot enjoy how the average 24 hour day gets transfered to 'constant ' daily rotation as a convenience and I have less to say about the stupidity which references daily rotation to the background stars via the 'sidereal time' reasoning,if somebody wants a gold badge or a clap on the back for appreciating the most basic planetary facts of dimensions organised around the rotational characteristics of 24 hours then they are addressing the wrong person,the basic principles are simple , enjoyable and part of my astronomical heritage while yours is a useless wordplay . What do you say to people who can't talk about the Earth's rotation but are talking about 'universal rotation' for the logical conclusion of 'sidereal time' and its fixed stars reference is the 'big bang' nightmare,something which is terrifying in its dominance among people who are not astronomers. > Mark L. Fergerson
From: alien8er on 19 Sep 2009 21:32 On Sep 18, 2:24 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 3:26 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Further evidence in favour of Mach's principle comes from cosmology. > > > If rotational motion is purely relative > > > It isn't. Look up "Foucalt pendulum". > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > Gyroscopes are nicer. > > Sure. These devices show that the earth is turning relative to some > *absolute* zero of rotation. But Mach suggested, and a lot of people > agree, that this zero is *defined by* the universe as a whole. The > universe is not rotating because that's the definition of "not > rotating". Somehow, and nobody is sure how, the universe as a whole > affects our local space so that a gyroscope will point at some given > distant galaxy regardless of the rotation of the earth beneath it. > > If Mach was right, and the jury is still out on that, then in a sense > rotation *is relative*. It's relative to the universe as a whole. The > zero of rotation is embedded in the universe, and has been ever since > the Big Bang. > > dow
From: alien8er on 19 Sep 2009 22:10 On Sep 18, 2:24 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 3:26 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Further evidence in favour of Mach's principle comes from cosmology. > > > If rotational motion is purely relative > > > It isn't. Look up "Foucalt pendulum". > > Gyroscopes are nicer. (sorry for the blank post; new trackball mouse is extra sensitive) Whatever your preference. The Foucault pendulum is easier to track IMO. > Sure. These devices show that the earth is turning relative to some > *absolute* zero of rotation. But Mach suggested, and a lot of people > agree, that this zero is *defined by* the universe as a whole. The > universe is not rotating We don't know that either. It could be rotating _very_ slowly. > because that's the definition of "not > rotating". Somehow, and nobody is sure how, the universe as a whole > affects our local space so that a gyroscope will point at some given > distant galaxy regardless of the rotation of the earth beneath it. This is a misstatement of a hypothesis put forward by Mach in an attempt to avoid complete Relativity. There are others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_principle It isn't even _Mach's_ principle; Einstein coined the term when he was inventing General Relativity. Mach himself didn't think there was necessarily any deep connection between "matter there and inertia here", though Einstein was convinced of it and considered the Lense-Thirring Effect to be proof (despite the fact that the "effect" is mathematical, not experimental). > If Mach was right, and the jury is still out on that, then in a sense > rotation *is relative*. It's relative to the universe as a whole. The > zero of rotation is embedded in the universe, and has been ever since > the Big Bang. Bottom line, be careful what you claim as "observed fact". Mark L. Fergerson
From: alien8er on 19 Sep 2009 23:00
On Sep 18, 2:44 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 9:08 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 15, 12:58 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 15, 7:49 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 15, 3:32 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 14, 11:06 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is that there's no fixed reference anywhere against > > > > > > > > which to measure the Earth's rotation period; it isn't even measurable > > > > > > > > against itself, though its absolute rotation _rate_ is measurable. > > > > > > > > Ummm.. There is (or at least there is thought to be) an absolutely non- > > > > > > > rotating frame of reference, independent of observations of stars, > > > > > > > etc.. It's the frame in which there are no centrifugal or Coriolis > > > > > > > forces. Theoretically, the absolute speed of rotation of he earth is > > > > > > > its speed relative to this frame. > > > > > > > No, there's no such external reference. > > > > > > > Besides, I said its _period_ (length of a day) is not independently > > > > > > measurable. > > > > > > Grow up for godness sake and think like a man. > > > > > You are an arrogant prick. You must be French. > > > > > You asked what you apparently assumed was a simple question (it > > > > wasn't) and I gave you the most honest answer I know. That evidently > > > > wasn't good enough to satisfy you. Too bad for you. > > > > > > The Earth , as a sphere, will rotate at different speeds from a > > > > > maximum speed at the Equator down to zero at the geographical > > > > > poles.The values for an observer at the Equator is 1669.8 km for every > > > > > 15 degrees of rotation covering the complete 40,075 km circumference > > > > > through 360 degrees,at 60 degrees latitude,the rotational speed is 837 > > > > > km for every 15 degrees/1 hour and the same for all latitudes in the > > > > > table - > > > > > >http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables... > > > > > > There is a cause and effect of different latitudinal speeds which > > > > > would be fairly easy to acknowledge in an era of air travel where most > > > > > people are aware of the rapid transition from daylight to darkness > > > > > the further towards the Equator and obversely,the longer twilights > > > > > experienced towards the geographical poles.At any given moment,a > > > > > location at the Equator is transiting at 1669.8 km per hour through > > > > > the circle of illumination generating a swift transition to darkness > > > > > while at 60 degrees latitude,the transition is longer due to the speed > > > > > of 837 km or 833 km less than the Equator speed. > > > > > Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I know all that. > > > > Good !,that makes you my first attentive student now go teach the rest > > > what you just comprehended. > > > I didn't "just" comprehend it, I certainly am not your "student", > > and everyone else already knows it as well. I said as much when I > > described the three kinds of "day". Weren't you paying attention? > > You don't realize that the latitudinal variations n twilight You refuse to realize that you are still timing the Earth's rotation period against the Sun, and IT MOVES. So, be a man, and admit there is no solid, unmoving reference against which to measure the Earth's rotation period. You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's rotation period. > > My point is that you cannot measure the Earth's rotation _period_ > > without using an external reference, and THEY ALL MOVE. > Work with the Earth's daily rotation as it moves through the circle of > illumination and come up with the latitudinal variations in twilight > and you won't have to worry about insisting on external references No "twilight" without using the external reference of the Sun. You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's rotation period. > > > > > A reasonable > > > > > person,and there are not many at the moment,accepts the cause and > > > > > effect with the values reflecting rotation through 360 degrees in 24 > > > > > hours and then teaches their students or kids properly. > > > > > 360 degrees _measured against what_? You _cannot_ measure the > > > > rotation of the Earth against itself only. > > > > The transition from daylight to darkness > > > You cannot measure the rotation of the Earth against the sun because > > IT MOVES. > > Who are you or anyone else to place limitations on interpretation,at > any given moment,a location at the Equator is turning through 1669.8 > km for every 15 degrees of rotation and a full 40,075 km rotation > through 360 degrees and consequently in 24 hours. How do you know that? You measure it against the Sun or some other _external_ reference. You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's rotation period. > > > > You appear to be _assuming_ that the solar day is the only "proper" > > > > day. That's all very nice, but it varies through the year and is > > > > therefore a poor standard. It is also completely useless for aiming > > > > astronomical telescopes. > > > > Grow up for goodness sake > > > Don't just deliver vague attempts at insult, contradict me with facts, > > if you can. > > Insults indeed !,you insult yourselves and it really takes no effort > from me,there is a chance one or two might wake up from this empirical > snoozing long enough to see Huygens or Harrison explain the technical > details contained in the 24 hour clock and its relationship to > planetary geometry organised around its rotational characteristics. > > http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=one... > > Page 90-91 explains it all from the person who come up with the > technology for the first accurate watches based on rotation in 24 > hours. Not relevant. You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's rotation period. > > > I am considered a madman for promoting the rotation of the Earth once > > > in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour > > > Measured against what, the sun? IT MOVES! > > > Also, the _rate_ of rotation of the Earth IS NOT constant; it varies > > over many time scales hence your claim is falsified. > > Once you have an idea in your head and especially that 'sidereal time > junk,it appears impossible for you to think otherwise. You are blinded by your obsession. You appear to have me confused with someone who prefers the "sidereal" day as more "real" than any other. I am not. You should have figured that out when you first noticed that I put the word "sidereal" in quotes. That was apparently too subtle for you, so I TOLD you that I put it in quotes because it is ARBITRARY due to the fact that its reference point MOVES through the sky. Do you get it yet? I AM NOT A PROPONENT OF THE "SIDEREAL" DAY. > The 24 hour day/ > calendar system was created in antiquity,the average 24 hour day > itself is an average cycle based on the natural noon reference,no more > or less.but the Equation of Time correction allows the 24 hour cycle > to represent an average of natural noons over the course of an annual > cycle thereby allowing you the facility of having the 24 hours of > Friday turn into the 24 hours of Saturday.Am I going to fast for you > or do you wish to take it further ? I had all that a long time ago. My point is that the Solar day is as ARBITRARY as the other two commonly used sorts of "day" because their reference points MOVE. You seem to think the solar day is more "real". It is not. > > You are indeed insane, right up there with the Einstein-haters. > > You call me insane for promoting the sprawling history and technical > details behind rotation in 24 hours but you cannot give me a single > instance before Flamsteed which hitched daily rotation to the > background stars. That. Is. Not. Relevant. To. My. Point. You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's rotation period. > > > You are arguing against planetary geometry/geography which states that > > > the Equatorial Earth rotates through 1669.8 km every 15 degrees and > > > its entire 40,075 km circumference in 24 hours > > > You keep asserting that as if you have some evidence. What is it? > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg > > There you go,use the spine which connects the geographical poles as a > substitute for the circle of illumination and turn the globe 15 > degrees and you will see it covers a geographical distance of 1669.8 > km at the Equator and a full 40,075 km circumference through 360 > degrees where 15 degrees represents 1 hour difference regardless of > latitude. Not relevant. You are not demonstrating an independent method of measuring the Earth's rotation period. > > > > > > > However, there is no existing way in which this speed can be measured > > > > > > > to more than a few digits of precision, so for practical purposes we > > > > > > > have to use the "fixed" stars, even though we know they are not really > > > > > > > fixed. > > > > > > > Horsefeathers. > > > > > > Horsefeathers you say !,take off that late 17th century powdered wig > > > > > and start thinking like a man or be left behind.You do not need to be > > > > > too smart to appreciate how the planet ,as a sphere, rotates through > > > > > 360 degrees at different speeds with definite values for each > > > > > latitudinal location with definite effects following from basic > > > > > planetary facts of dimensions and rotational characteristics so drop > > > > > that nonsense of the 'fixed stars' and a really,really stupid > > > > > 'sidereal time' reasoning. > > > > > Yes, horsefeathers. There is NO non-moving external standard against > > > > which to measure the Earth's rotation period. > > > > > There is no way to measure the Earth's rotation period on the > > > > surface of the Earth, without using an external reference. > > > > > That's all there is to it. The solar day is as arbitrary as the > > > > others. They each have their uses and each is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE > > > > for other uses. > > > > > Nobody cares about your idea of "smart" and "stupid", or what you > > > > think it means to be "a man". You have your fixation; enjoy it. > > > > No,humanity has a holocaust > > > I suspect that word does not mean what you think it does. > > > > which sees people who do not know their > > > limitations and enforce contrived speculative junk on the wider > > > population under the guise of 'astronomy'. > > > What are you talking about? The "wider population" doesn't care > > about astronomy, it cares about filling its belly with cheap booze, > > and killing anyone who is (or might be) in any way different. > > > > It is not an understatement > > > but rather an unfortunate fact that even the Earth's shape which is > > > contained in the following set of geodetic values is lost so that we > > > literally exist,at least in matters relating to planetary > > > dynamics,structural astronomy and terrestrial effects at the level of > > > flat Earthers,this is no exaggeration for what people can wilfully > > > ignore common sense and all the history of > > > timekeeping,clocks,longitude and planetary geography/geometry. > > > >http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables.... > > > You are very good at producing disjointed, rambling sentences. Did > > the foregoing have a point? > > > > Now,remind me how long it takes the Earth to turn once. > > > I have already told you that there is no way to measure it except > > against moving external references, but you aren't really interested. > > You'd rather rant about some supposed vague conspiracy theory of > > yours. > > As far as I am concerned it is a matter of too many intellectual > weaklings who cannot enjoy how the average 24 hour day gets transfered > to 'constant ' daily rotation as a convenience and I have less to say > about the stupidity which references daily rotation to the background > stars via the 'sidereal time' reasoning,if somebody wants a gold > badge or a clap on the back for appreciating the most basic planetary > facts of dimensions organised around the rotational characteristics of > 24 hours then they are addressing the wrong person,the basic > principles are simple , enjoyable and part of my astronomical heritage > while yours is a useless wordplay . Wrong on so many levels. I am not a proponent of so-called "sidereal" time. You _still_ have not shown a way to _independently_ measure the Earth's rotation period. > What do you say to people who can't talk about the Earth's rotation > but are talking about 'universal rotation' for the logical conclusion > of 'sidereal time' and its fixed stars reference is the 'big bang' > nightmare,something which is terrifying in its dominance among people > who are not astronomers. That's your obsession, not mine. Mark L. Fergerson |