SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
George Hammond
In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
proposed method of finding Longitude by:
"observing the moon between two stars"
as described at:
http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&issue=106b
(two pages... click to second page)
I have not obtained the original and this online version
has barely readable diagrams.
However, it appears simple, and a knowledgeable
astrophysicist should be able to discern immediately what he
was doing and whether it would work.
If anyone competent in this area could take 5 minutes to
look at this and recognize how it worked.... could you
explain it to this physicist in modern English and give an
opinion as to how astute Swedenborg actually was as a
scientist... bearing in mind he was only in his twenties
when he dreamed up this longitude method and believed that
it was a viable contender for the fabulous "Longitude Prize"
offered by the British government in 1714.
Very obliged, Hammond
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Virgil
George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
> SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
> In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
> method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
> that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
> Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
> of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
> Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
> publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
> me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
> up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
> investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
> in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
> famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
> What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
> mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
> phenomena?
Something similar happened with Isaac Newton in his later years.
George Hammond
<Vir...@gmale.com> wrote:
>In article <1goj64h0qcscgt91m...@4ax.com>,
> George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>>[Hammond]
>> SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
>> In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
>> method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
>> that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
>> Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
>> of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
>> Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
>> publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
>> me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
>> up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
>> investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
>> in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
>> famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
>> What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
>> mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
>> phenomena?
>
>[Virgi]
>Something similar happened with Isaac Newton in his later years.
>
[Hammond]
Wolfgang Pauli too. In fact Carl Jung treated Pauli for
mild mental disturbance after he married a stripper and had
a drunken driving accident. In 1952 they jointly published
a book entitled _The Interpretation of Nature and the
Psyche_ in which they proposed their own watered down
"Swedenborgian" verison of the physics of mental phenomena.
Fact is many scientists get slightly schizo in their old
age. Too much studying and too little sex. Swedenborg was
simply the first to take a high powered scientific look at
the contents of mental disturbance. Pauli was second. Now
Hammond is the third. This progression finally led Hammond
to prove that GOD=G_uv which proves that God is an actual
curvature of (subjective) spacetime.
Hammond has discovered the scientific explanation of
"God", but I am still working on the problem of Life After
Death. Which is why I am currently investigating Swedenborg
in depth.
luke...@space.unibe.ch
> SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
> In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
> method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
> that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
> Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
> of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
> Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
> publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
> me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
> up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
> investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
> in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
> famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
> What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
> mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
> phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
> proposed method of finding Longitude by:
> "observing the moon between two stars"
> as described at:
>
> (two pages... click to second page)
>
> I have not obtained the original and this online version
> has barely readable diagrams.
> However, it appears simple, and a knowledgeable
> astrophysicist should be able to discern immediately what he
> was doing and whether it would work.
> If anyone competent in this area could take 5 minutes to
> look at this and recognize how it worked.... could you
> explain it to this physicist in modern English and give an
> opinion as to how astute Swedenborg actually was as a
> scientist... bearing in mind he was only in his twenties
> when he dreamed up this longitude method and believed that
> it was a viable contender for the fabulous "Longitude Prize"
> offered by the British government in 1714.
> Very obliged, Hammond
Seems reasonable George.
However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
difficult than that of building a clock.
I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
the Longitude prize.
Cheers
George Hammond
luke...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>On Jul 1, 11:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>>[Hammond]
>[Luke]
>Seems reasonable George.
>
>However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
>precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
>difficult than that of building a clock.
>
>I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
>better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
>the Longitude prize.
>
>Cheers>
>
[Hammond]
I haven't studied it but all "lunar distance" methods are
based on using the moon's motion around the Zodiac as a
clock. Problem is the moon only moves around the Zodiac
once a month while the minute hand of a clock rotates once
every hour meaning the moon moves (30)(24)=720 times slower
than a clock.
This would indicate that very precise measurements of the
moon would be necessary. Apparently however, the genius of
Swedenborg's method is that it uses the alignment of the
moon between 2 stars whose positions are already known and
therefore simple alignment eliminatesw most of the accurate
measurements otherwise required.
I wish I could get a knowlegable opinion of his scheme...
whch is probably already well known to astronomical experts
somwhere.
dke...@hotmail.com
Hi
The problem with this method was that the Moon was not always
seen at night. Ships can't wait for the Moon.
Using a clock, one could use Moon, Sun or stars.
Dwight
spudnik
except for a day or two per orbit. that is the basis
of Captain Maui's method in Erastosthenes' expedition,
which got as far as Chile (and perhaps no further;
see www.wlym.com).
re Swedenborg,
can you lift The Urantia Book?...
can God launch an albatross that he can't float?
> The problem with this method was that the Moon was not always
> seen at night. Ships can't wait for the Moon.
> Using a clock, one could use Moon, Sun or stars.
thus:
of course, even if you can see Venus, some times,
carefully shielding your eyes from the bright horizon
of dawn or dusk, why would that mean that the camera will see it?
thus:
do none of these articles mention tensegrity --
is that purposeful?
speaking of whether you're really a wigwam or a teepee [*],
Islam has many important cultural aspects, perhaps all
of them simply being codifications of Arabic ones, but
I don't plan on converting. I mean, I'd love
to be a camel jockey, two, but Obama's just-announced conversion
to the anticonstitutional faith-based initiatives [**], really,
has me wondering about camel poop ... and other forms
of "alternative energy." I only just read that
Obama shills for corn ethanol.
there is no "separation of church & state,"
for crying out loud; doesn't the DNC know this?
* the trouble with you is,
you're two tents; ha.
** here, we can perhaps see the true meaning
of *antidisestablishmentarianism*, if it's the case that
the Bill of Rights is "disestablishmentarian" with regard
to religions. I'd always thought, it was just a nonsequiter.
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1818208,00.html
>search:
>buckminster june-26-2008 OR 6.26.2008
which one of you guys has ever photographed foreground objects,
against a supposedly starry background?... well,
I haven't, either, but I wouldn't even try. I mean,
do you ever see objects in the foreground, regardless of focus,
in astronomical photography?
this is a God-am Photo One dot One lesson -- yeesh!
> well, how about, what maximum angle over the horizon,
> have you ever seen Venus without any visual aids?
> * the trouble with you is,
> you're two tents; ha.
--Seargent Cheeny Pepper,
"Give war a chance in the Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial markets!"
George Hammond
>[dkelvey]
>Hi
> The problem with this method was that the Moon was not always
>seen at night. Ships can't wait for the Moon.
> Using a clock, one could use Moon, Sun or stars.
>Dwight
>
>
[Hammond]
Crossing the Atlantic or Pacific took months in those
days. They certainly had plenty of time to wait for
favorable observing conditions.
Besides, in those days there was no way of even
determining longitude on land! The longitude of the
American colonies could only be approximately guessed for
instance. Surely Swedenborg's method could have been used
to determine the longitude of Boston, New York or St.
Augustine.
Androcles
"spudnik" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0af7ff9-e642-40e1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
the moon can always be seen at some time of night, at sea,
except for a day or two per orbit.
Babbling cretin. Not only are you idiotically wrong about
night, "at sea" has no relevance whatsoever.
William Elliot
> On Jul 1, 11:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
> > SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
> > In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
> > method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
> > that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
> > Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
> > of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
> > What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
> > mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
> > phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
> > proposed method of finding Longitude by:
> > "observing the moon between two stars"
> > as described at:
> >
> > http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&i...
> > (two pages... click to second page)
>
> However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
> precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
> difficult than that of building a clock.
>
> I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
> better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
> the Longitude prize.
>
Read it! It's fantastic. The longitude prise was first offered by Britain
when it lost a number of battle ships from running aground in the fog off
the shore of Britain. It covers the competing lunar transits efforts that
was favored over the clock makers entry. It involved transits of
of the four Jovian moons and required complicated ephemeris and training
to use them.
George Hammond
<ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 luke...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 11:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>> > SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
>> > In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
>> > method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
>> > that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
>> > Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
>> > of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
>
>
>> > What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
>> > mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
>> > phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
>> > proposed method of finding Longitude by:
>> > "observing the moon between two stars"
>> > as described at:
>> >
>> > http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&i...
>> > (two pages... click to second page)
>> >
>>
>>[Luke]
>> However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
>> precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
>> difficult than that of building a clock.
>>
>> I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
>> better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
>> the Longitude prize.
>>
>
>[William Elliot]
>Read it! It's fantastic. The longitude prise was first offered by Britain
>when it lost a number of battle ships from running aground in the fog off
>the shore of Britain. It covers the competing lunar transits efforts that
>was favored over the clock makers entry. It involved transits of
>of the four Jovian moons and required complicated ephemeris and training
>to use them.
>
>
[Hammond]
Does "Longitude" by Dava Sobel mention Swedenborg or his
method of observing the moon between two stars?
Swedenborg published his Lunar Method in Swedish in 1718,
in Latin in 1721 and after he became famous 50 years later
in either Latin or English. He discussed the method
personally with both Flamsteed and Halley in London in 1721.
Could someone look in the Index of "Longitude" (Sobel's
book) and see if Swedenborg is listed?
spudnik
moon is near sun, then, which makes it as hard to see as Venus,
except immediately after sunclipse or before sunsight,
to use Bucky's coinage.
weather permitting, at sea means no other obstructions.
> except for a day or two per orbit.
> Babbling cretin. Not only are you idiotically wrong about
Steve Willner
In article <1goj64h0qcscgt91m...@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
> http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1042&issue=106b
The article is hard to follow because of the obsolete terminology,
and I haven't made much effort. As far as I can tell, though, the
basic idea is to use the Moon as a clock. The Moon moves its own
diameter with respect to the background stars every hour or so, and
thus measuring an accurate lunar position gives the time. Combining
time with altitudes of stars gives longitude. There are second-order
corrections for "horizontal parallax," but the basic method should
work.
The difficulty I see is that calculating accurate lunar positions in
advance is very difficult because the Moon's orbit is perturbed by
the Sun and by the non-sphericity of the Earth. This would make
lunar positions unsuited to navigation until at least the 20th
century, by which time better methods existed. The "lunar clock"
could have been used for figuring out the longitudes of fixed places
on Earth (by, say, after-the-fact comparison with lunar positions
measured at Greenwich), but in practice using Jupiter's satellites
turned out to be much easier both because the calculations were
easier and because advance ephemerides could easily be computed.
What worries me about my understanding of the article is on the
second page: "there is no need to know the moon's apparent position,
but only the position of the point (d) in the zodiac, which is
obtained from the known latitude and longitude of the stars." I
don't understand this, but if Swedenborg thought he could determine
longitude only by measuring positions of fixed stars (without a
chronometer), he was wrong.
As I say, it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood the whole
article, but I'd expect the general comments on using lunar positions
for longitude to be more or less right.
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)
spudnik
What is the least path in phasespacetime, when
you've really got a problem ... of some sort.
> Swedenborg published his Lunar Method in Swedish in 1718,
thus:
a series of straigh bars in a linkage,
hanging like a chain, is called a "funicular," but
a series of least-time paths (from particular points
to particular points) would be a series
of brachistochrones....
the original Brachistochrone challenge by Leibniz was,
I think, a slider; the solution'd be somehow different,
for a rolling ball e.g.; eh?
a related problem is the cycloid,
which Galileo guessed to be a parabola;
a parabola is a limit of the catenary, though.
> If there's no friction, it certainly will. You're
> just trading kinetic energy for potential energy.
thus:
you'll make the first, real face on Mars, perhaps;
how's the shingling?
thus:
that would be somewhat counterproductive,
compared to "getting" Keper's orbital constraints
in some kind of a write-up -- I mean,
you could read one at http://wlym.com/drupal/ -- and
there are probably more valid proofs of it,
than there are horribly misconstrued analyses
of Fermat's challenge in fermatian trigona
(trigona whose third corners are on fermatian curves,
X^n + Y^n = Z^n, or_ _
X^n +Y^n - Z^n = ...0. or .0...
in homogenous coordinates.
old Descartes would apparently never do such curves,
as not "constructible" in a mechanical sense,
not just by compasses.
> I would be more interesting if you learned anything at all about
> "how Newtons works" in the first place.
thus:
shortest path or Leibniz's quickest time. in general,
the shortest path is not the quickest time,
with the exception just made,
which is just one of the tautochrones;
> If you choose to travel this radial path, then you
> must discard the "free" velocity that you have
> already got by simply travelling along with the
> Earth in its orbit. That's throwing away about
--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND
(come a/the/such-like Rapture?);
NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526save_nations_parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html
Odysseus
wil...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
<snip>
>
> What worries me about my understanding of the article is on the
> second page: "there is no need to know the moon's apparent position,
> but only the position of the point (d) in the zodiac, which is
> obtained from the known latitude and longitude of the stars." I
> don't understand this, but if Swedenborg thought he could determine
> longitude only by measuring positions of fixed stars (without a
> chronometer), he was wrong.
AFAICT the method involves comparing the position of the Moon to two
stars, with all three bodies lying on the same meridian. One of the
stars can then be used as a reference. I haven't looked at it long or
closely enough to see how it works in detail, but it seems to me that
the crucial bit is right at the beginning: "A time must be awaited when
the moon is seen in a straight line with two fixed stars of known
longitude." Easier said than done (or measured), I should think ...
--
Odysseus
Dr J R Stockton
Jul 2008 21:42:45, Steve Willner <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> posted:
Yours is the only article in thread that I've seen, because I have a
cross-post limit.
>The difficulty I see is that calculating accurate lunar positions in
>advance is very difficult because the Moon's orbit is perturbed by
>the Sun and by the non-sphericity of the Earth. This would make
>lunar positions unsuited to navigation until at least the 20th
>century, by which time better methods existed.
>As I say, it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood the whole
>article, but I'd expect the general comments on using lunar positions
>for longitude to be more or less right.
Lunar observations were used for navigation before the era of accurate
chronometers. The Tables can be computed by hand, with effort.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer_royal> includes :-
King Charles II, who founded the Royal Observatory Greenwich in 1675
instructed the first Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed, "to apply
himself with the most exact care and diligence to the rectifying of
the tables of the motions of the heavens, and the places of the fixed
stars, so as to find out the so much desired longitude of places for
the perfecting of the art of navigation."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(navigation)> refers, and
has links including <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude>,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_almanac>.
Read Patrick O'Brian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Brian>.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Robert Clark
> [Irrelevant newsgroups snipped.]
>
> George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> writes:
>
> >http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1042&i...
As discussed here Tobias Mayer or his widow received part of the
famous Longitude prize for a similar method:
Precomputed lunar distance tables.
http://www.math.uu.nl/people/wepster/ldtab.html
I became interested in the story of the longitude after seeing a Nova
episode based on Dava Sobel's book "Longitude". One extraordinary
episode recounted in the book told of an entire English fleet lost in
heavy fog while just a few miles off the coast of Britain because they
did not have an accurate knowledge of their longitude. Sobel described
that a common sailor came forward to give the admirals and captains of
the ships who assembled together to decide their location his
opinion of their position and for this he was promptly hanged on the
spot. The naval laws were strict about sailors even attempting to do
their own calculations because this was so critical it was felt mutiny
would arise if the ships crew did not trust the captains judgment on
the matter. It turned out that that sailors calculations were correct
and had the admirals and captains listened the fleet would have been
saved.
Sobels dramatic telling led me to speculate about some methods
mariners of the time might have been able to accurately determine
their longitude. I copied two emails below that I wrote to the author
of the "Precomputed lunar distance tables" web site about a suggested
method. It also concerned the position of the Moon. But I believe it
would have been easier to implement than requiring accurate
determination of the angular distance between the Moon and stars.
Bob Clark
==============================================
Date : Wed, Nov 29, 2006 02:50 AM EST
From : "Robert Clark" <****@****>
To : ****@math.uu.nl
Subject : The apparent size of the Moon to solve the "problem of the
longitude"?
Hello. I saw your web page discussing "lunars" after a web search.
I like many other scientists was fascinated by the story described by
Dava Sobel about the quest for an accurate determination of the
longitude, finally solved in the 18th century.
I wondered if it would have been possible to get it from the change
in the apparent size of the Sun according to distance. However, the
change in this distance is relatively small. So I thought instead
about the Moon.
The idea is that a pinhole camera projects an image whose size is
proportional to the size of the source and inversely proportional to
its
distance:
Finding the Size of the Sun and Moon.
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/AtHomeAstronomy/activity_03.html
Note that this can still work to measure the apparent size of the
Moon even when it's not a full Moon as long as part of the limb is
visible.
As you described on your web page on the calculation of the "lunars",
Tobias Mayer calculated very accurate positions for the Moon. I
presume this means he also would have known very accurate distances
from the Earth to the Moon. Note that the distances are not always the
same even for the perigee or for the apogee; so these predictions
would have to be made for each particular day in
each particular year.
Here's a modern calculator for this using the most up to date data
for the Moon's orbit:
Lunar Perigee and Apogee Calculator.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
And this web page shows the distance to the Moon changes by as much
as 14% during its orbit, resulting in a dramatic change in its
apparent size:
Lunar Image Gallery - Scenic Phenomenon
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Scenes-Apo-Perigee.htm
So instead of tables of angular distances between the Moon and
certain stars, there would be tables of the size of the Moon at at a
certain fixed longitude, and you could deduce how far away you were
from that location by the size you measured at your own location.
There would be "measuring boxes" made of a uniform size so the image
projected would be the same size for the same apparent size Moon, with
gradations marked on the inside to easily read off the size.
As discussed on the pinhole camera page, the size of the projected
image is dependent on the distance between the pinhole and the
projection surface. So this length would have to be greatly and
accurately standardized.
You would also need the boxes to be made of material that expanded
very little with temperature variations. This is a problem John
Harrison
encountered for the production of his accurate watches. I believe this
is a much easier problem with a static box than with a complicated
moving mechanism like a watch. For instance glass is used for
telescope lenses and mirrors because of its stability against size
variations on temperature change. It's much easier to make a static
glass box than a watch made of glass.
The change in distance and therefore apparent size is 1 part in 7
over half an orbit, 14 days. So it's 1 part in 7*14 = 98 per day,
assuming the distance changing uniformly. (We could include in our
calculations the deviation from the uniformity assumption by taking
into account the elliptical shape of the orbit.) Then it's 1 part in
98*24= 2352 per hour. If we wanted to reach the accuracy required for
the Longitude Prize by *direct measurement* we would have to multiply
this number by 15 to get it to 1 part in 35,280. However, we could
instead use interpolation as used for the "lunars".
The Moon's diameter is about 3500 km and the distance at perigee is
about 350,000. So the ratio of actual size to distance is about 1 to a
100. This means the ratio of size of projected image to length of the
box would also be 1 to 100. If the measuring box was 10 meters long,
the size of the image would be about 10 cm. So at the 1 part in 2352
accuracy level we would need to measure to within an accuracy of 42
microns across the 10 cm image. This is about the width of a human
hair, which should be within the measuring accuracy available for the
18th century. For visually observing this small distance magnifying
lenses would be sufficient.
How badly would diffraction of the atmosphere effect the accuracy of
this method?
=============================================
Date : Tue, Dec 05, 2006 07:00 PM EST
From : "Robert Clark" <****@****>
To : ****@math.uu.nl
Subject : Re[2]: The apparent size of the Moon to solve the "problem
of the longitude"?
Thanks for the response. I didn't think of the fact that the distance
would change little at the max and min distance.
However, I thought of a way to make the measurements easier in
general. What you could do would be to use a telescope to make the
image larger. The telescope would be used like a film projector to
make a larger image on a screen.
This page shows pretty decent scopes were made in the 18th century:
18th-century telescopes.
http://www.antiquetelescopes.org/18thc.html
The use of the telescope for astronomy dates back to Galileo of
course in the 17th century:
17th-century telescopes.
http://www.antiquetelescopes.org/17thc.html
I don't know the relationship between the size of the image and the
size of the objective but I presume it would also depend on the focal
length of the scope and the distance to the screen.
The presumption is you could make a larger image say 1 meter size at
a shorter distance to the screen, so that you wouldn't need a 10 meter
distance like I first suggested, by using a larger lens or mirror and
the appropriate focal length.
Tables would be used as before to indicate the expected size of the
image at the reference location according to the time of day at the
reference location.
For finding local time required in the calculation, my reading of
Sobel's book suggests portable clocks of the time would be accurate to
within a few minutes within a single day, which would be all that is
required for determination of longitude. (Harrison's accomplishment
was to create a clock that would be accurate to within a few seconds
per day so over a sea voyage it only be off by a few minutes.) So you
would just set your clock at the local noon say and you would only
need it to be accurate to within a few minutes at the night time
observations.
Another possibility occurs to me for finding the expected size
according to the time you were observing. Wouldn't the position of the
Moon from North, determined by the Pole star or compass, change as the
night progressed? It seems to me you could have the tables for the
reference location give the distance in degrees from North at a
particular time and also give the expected size at that position.
Then for the mariners making their observations they would find the
angular distance of the Moon from north, check the table for the
expected size at this angular distance, then compute their longitude
from the deviation of their measured size from the size given in the
table.
As for the required calculations, I was startled by this discovery of
the
capabilities of this calculating machine for determining positions of
the Moon and known planets dating from 100 to 200 B.C.:
Ancient calculator demystified at last
Greeks’ 2,100-year-old Antikythera Mechanism was used in astronomy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15953550/
The device worked by a complicated combination of interconnected
gears. This was certainly within the capabilities of the 18th century.
Admittedly it's construction details were lost until revealed
recently. But there were human-like "automatons" made of gears made in
the 18th century and I believe calculating devices could also have
been made at this time if someone had thought of it.
Bob Clark
==========================================
Androcles
"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f061759e-946c-4c64...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
18th-century telescopes.
http://www.antiquetelescopes.org/18thc.html
17th-century telescopes.
http://www.antiquetelescopes.org/17thc.html
Bob Clark
==========================================
If Earth, like Mars, had two smaller moons instead one large one
how much easier would it be to locate latitude and longitude with
an astrolabe?
Or better yet, enough moons so that three or four could be seen
at all times instead of only when one is above the horizon?
Suppose we put a radio transmitter on every moon so that
we were not dependent on a visual sighting, but could "see"
right through cloud whenever we wanted to?
Suppose each moon could tell us where it was on that radio
signal so that we didn't need an astrolabe?
An even better improvement would be to have each moon
carry an accurate clock and tell us the exact time it was there
when it sent the radio transmission.
This would be sci-fi, of course... unless it was called GPS,
finally solved in the 20th century.
How badly would diffraction (oops - refraction) of the atmosphere
effect the accuracy of this method?
Quite a lot really, you could easily be up to 100 feet out of
position vertically and 30 feet off horizontally. How terrible.
Spaceman
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Hmm,
It seems the Brachistochrone actually has a problem.
Without friction, it seems the curved path
will not beat the straight one.
You may wish to check that math again
It seems they will actually meet at the same time
if you actually check it out.
:)
Try using an actual mass instead of the silly
massless light bullshit.
LOL
BTW: light taking a curved path by increasing
speed also would be allowing light to travel faster
than 186,000 mps.
so..
You best rethink that curve completely.
It is based upon a non constant speed if light
and more sad... it also says lightspeed
can increase faster than 186,000 miles per second
if sent though a gravitational field with vacuum
all around.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
tude.
because space is only formed around matter,
there will be curvatures associated with the matter.
I even read that "relativistic" subatomic particles are so heavy,
that gravitation ceases being negligable between'em. unfortunattely,
the metaphor is taken one degree to far,
in applying electronvolt "mass" to "photons,"
in trying to discern their properties *other* than absorption or
emmission.
> Brachistochrone
> Brachistochrone
> Brachistochrone
>
> Hmm,
--we don'need no Oxbridge-cation;
http://wlym.org
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
of a photon" of light, but that doesn't mean that
that's what light is; this is just a representation
of the energy-function, or some thing.
> Brachistochrone
> Brachistochrone
> Brachistochrone
Robert Clark
have been able to use to solve the "problem of the longitude":
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur, sci.physics
From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Jul 8 2008 6:43 pm
Subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/9576a220a83347cc
I mentioned that for doing the calculations they might have used
some type of gearing mechanism such as the remarkable "Antikythera"
invented by the ancient Greeks:
Ancient calculator demystified at last.
Greeks’ 2,100-year-old Antikythera Mechanism was used in astronomy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15953550/
It occurs to me that the Antikythera itself might have been used by
the ancient Greeks to determine longitude. The device is described in
further detail here:
Antikythera mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
In this article they play down its possible use for navigation
because the bronze gears would wear down under the corrosion of the
sea environment and because it determined eclipses which the article
says are unnecessary for navigation.
However, several of the gears have survived for 2 millenia under the
sea. It seems likely the device could have operated for years if not
allowed to be directly immersed in water. And eclipses can occur as
many as 7 times per year. For mariners who might have gone to sea
every day, it would have been useful to know the exact times these
would be expected. They would also give an additional method for
knowing the exact time of day during the daytime, unlike Moon and star
observations.
According to the wikipedia article, in addition to the Moon, the
Antikythera determined at least the positions of the inner planets
Mercury and Venus and may have determined the positions of the 3 other
known planets at the time Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The method used
by the 18-century navigators was to measure the angular distance
between the Moon and certain well known stars and compare this to
precomputed tables. However, because of the rolling nature of ships on
the sea, getting accurate measurements was a problem. The Antikythera
could have been used by the ancient Greek mariners instead of the
tables, in this case measuring the angle between the Moon and planets.
But there would be the same problem with accurately measuring angles.
Could the ancient Mariners have found instead from the Antikythera
the times when the planets rose from the horizon and when they set?
Quite key here is the length of time it takes for the planet to
complete its orbit. For the stars when they rose and set would be the
same local time for everyone so they would be no use for determining
longitude. However, for the planets as the Earth rotates it takes time
and during that time the planets will have moved in their orbits, so
their rising/setting time will be different for different locations
on the Earth. The amount of the difference will be greater of course
for the planets that move the greatest angular distance in a short
time. Then Mercury which completes its orbit in 88 days would be best
for this purpose, next best would be Venus with an orbital period of
224 days. This would not give your position at any desired time but
determining the rising/setting time for the Moon, Mercury, Venus could
give you your position for 6 times during the night which may have
been sufficient accuracy for the slow speeds of the ships of the
ancient world.
Bob Clark
tadchem
> In this post I discussed a method that 18th-century mariners might
> have been able to use to solve the "problem of the longitude":
>
> Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur, sci.physics
> From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Tues, Jul 8 2008 6:43 pm
>
> I mentioned that for doing the calculations they might have used
> some type of gearing mechanism such as the remarkable "Antikythera"
> invented by the ancient Greeks:
>
> Ancient calculator demystified at last.
>
> It occurs to me that the Antikythera itself might have been used by
> the ancient Greeks to determine longitude. The device is described in
> further detail here:
>
Determination of longitude requires precise determination of time, no
matter how you cut it. Determination of time by measuring the moon
angle is especially challenging. To prepare ephemerides giving the
position of the moon sufficient to determine longitude to 1 degree
would require determining time to
At Antikythera (latitude 35° 52' N.) one degree of longitude equals
about 90 miles. To calculate even this imprecise a result requires
scores of Ptolemaic deferents and epicycles - equivalent to
trigonometric functions, each requiring one or more gears in an analog
computer such as the mechanism in question.
The Antikythera mechanism simply cannot be precise enough to function
as a useful navigational clock.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Androcles
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:45ecf7ab-c7fd-4767...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Determination of longitude requires precise determination of time, no
| matter how you cut it.
I beg to differ. GPS depends solely on satellite position at ONE time,
NOW, and does not change from hour to hour. It is merely triangulation
no matter how you cut it. I do not need "real time" to calculate where
I was yesterday, I only need the positional data from the satellites
yesterday at some instant, common to all.
Time has nothing whatever to do with it, except insofar as the position
of the satellite changes as a function of time.
The ratio of the US dollar to the British pound is 4:1 (in WW II).
Time has nothing whatever to do with it, except insofar as the
ratio changes as years go by.
Chris L Peterson
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>I beg to differ. GPS depends solely on satellite position at ONE time,
>NOW, and does not change from hour to hour. It is merely triangulation
>no matter how you cut it. I do not need "real time" to calculate where
>I was yesterday, I only need the positional data from the satellites
>yesterday at some instant, common to all.
>Time has nothing whatever to do with it, except insofar as the position
>of the satellite changes as a function of time.
I assume you're being deliberately obtuse. Obviously there are ways of
determining longitude without worrying about absolute time. Building an
external set of references, as with the GPS system, is one of those. But
before we could do that, the only way to determine longitude was to
compare local time to the time a fixed reference location. For virtually
all of recorded history, determining longitude was equivalent to knowing
the time.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Androcles
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:gv5584pou6fnbpib3...@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:45:26 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >I beg to differ. GPS depends solely on satellite position at ONE time,
| >NOW, and does not change from hour to hour. It is merely triangulation
| >no matter how you cut it. I do not need "real time" to calculate where
| >I was yesterday, I only need the positional data from the satellites
| >yesterday at some instant, common to all.
| >Time has nothing whatever to do with it, except insofar as the position
| >of the satellite changes as a function of time.
|
| I assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
Well done, you managed to assume.
| Obviously there are ways of
| determining longitude without worrying about absolute time.
That's what I said and gave an example, obviously.
I assume you are a cretin attempting to be obtuse but not succeeding.
tadchem
> "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
So, to determine longitude, instead of determining the precise
position of one orbiting moon at an exact time, GPS determines
longitude by determining the exact position of several of a fleet of
orbiting satellites at an exact time.
Same problem - the difference is only a difference of degree of
difficulty.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>So, to determine longitude, instead of determining the precise
>position of one orbiting moon at an exact time, GPS determines
>longitude by determining the exact position of several of a fleet of
>orbiting satellites at an exact time.
>
>Same problem - the difference is only a difference of degree of
>difficulty.
I disagree that it's the same problem. The practical implementation of
GPS involves time, but that time is not related to the way time is used
to classically determine longitude. The method used by GPS to determine
location is fundamentally different, in depending on a set of artificial
reference points. GPS doesn't depend on the fundamental relationship
between time and longitude- it abstracts the coordinate system. (It also
abstracts the time, into a serial value, not the 24-hour time.)
Sam Wormley
Androcles
=========================
Correct.
=========================
Same problem - the difference is only a difference of degree of
difficulty.
=========================
What problem? I live within a very few miles of Flamsteed House
which has longitude zero (by definition).
http://www.jbutler.org.uk/London/Greenwich/park.shtml
My present longitude is easily (!) calculated from the odometer
reading of my car, standing stationary nearby as I write.
That does NOT involve time at all.
Determination of longitude DOES NOT require precise determination
of time, no matter how you cut it. Nor has it been since cables were
laid on the ocean floor to carry information, the length of which
was of greater importance than the longitude.
In the past clocks were the only PRACTICAL way of determining
longitude but that is no longer true. Mariners have hung up their
astrolabes, there is no money in making them anymore.
Robert Clark
> On Jul 19, 12:37 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In this post I discussed a method that 18th-century mariners might
> > have been able to use to solve the "problem of thelongitude":
>
> > Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur, sci.physics
> > From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
> > Local: Tues, Jul 8 2008 6:43 pm
>
> > I mentioned that for doing the calculations they might have used
> > some type of gearing mechanism such as the remarkable "Antikythera"
> > invented by the ancient Greeks:
>
> > Ancient calculator demystified at last.
> > Greeks’ 2,100-year-old Antikythera Mechanism was used in astronomy.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15953550/
>
> > It occurs to me that the Antikythera itself might have been used by
> matter how you cut it. Determination of time by measuring the moon
> angle is especially challenging. To prepare ephemerides giving the
> would require determining time to
>
> At Antikythera (latitude 35° 52' N.) one degree oflongitudeequals
> about 90 miles. To calculate even this imprecise a result requires
> scores of Ptolemaic deferents and epicycles - equivalent to
> trigonometric functions, each requiring one or more gears in an analog
> computer such as the mechanism in question.
>
> The Antikythera mechanism simply cannot be precise enough to function
> as a useful navigational clock.
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
This page states a nautical mile is about 1 minute of latitude along
a meridian, so about 1 minute of longitude along the equator:
Nautical mile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_miles
So one degree of longitude along the equator is 60 nautical miles, or
69 statute miles. At 35 degree latitude, the distance would be
69*cos(35°) = 56 miles.
This page states the first part of the 18th-century "Longitude prize"
could be won with an accuracy of 60 nautical miles, or 1 degree of
longitude at the equator, with the biggest prize at 30 nautical miles,
1/2 a degree:
Longitude prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize
This page states the Antikythera was marked off in degrees and was
accurate to within 1/4 of a degree:
The Antikythera Device.
http://efialtis.multiply.com/journal/item/108
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
> Could the ancient Mariners have found instead from the Antikythera
> the times when the planets rose from the horizon and when they set?
> Quite key here is the length of time it takes for the planet to
> complete its orbit. For the stars when they rose and set would be the
> same local time for everyone so they would be no use for determining
> longitude. However, for the planets as the Earth rotates it takes time
> and during that time the planets will have moved in their orbits, so
> their rising/setting time will be different for different locations
> on the Earth. The amount of the difference will be greater of course
> for the planets that move the greatest angular distance in a short
> time. Then Mercury which completes its orbit in 88 days would be best
> for this purpose, next best would be Venus with an orbital period of
> 224 days. This would not give your position at any desired time but
> determining the rising/setting time for the Moon, Mercury, Venus could
> give you your position for 6 times during the night which may have
> been sufficient accuracy for the slow speeds of the ships of the
> ancient world.
>
This page states the Antikythera gave the times of both lunar and
solar eclipses:
The Antikythera Device.
http://efialtis.multiply.com/journal/item/108
It also showed the motion of the Sun and the Moon through the stars
of the Zodiac, as well as giving the rising and setting time of these
well known stars.
Note that the time when a lunar or solar eclipse occurs is the same
as saying when the Sun and Moon appear to meet in the sky. And the
rising and setting time of stars and planets is when these appear to
meet the Earth. Then that the Antikythera showed how the Sun and Moon
moved through the constellations means it also accurately showed when
the stars and planets met the Sun and the Moon.
Since there were so many stars shown this gave a quick way of
determining time and therefore longitude, that would have been much
easier than measuring the angle between the Moon and stars or planets.
Bob Clark
Golden California Girls
Until you go over a mountain and the path along the ground is longer!
Androcles
"Golden California Girls" <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
news:aoJgk.103$GI.69@trnddc05...
Greenwich Park is a mountain? In my country we call it a hill. I must
remember to set my watch to mountain time so that I know where I am.
Maybe Greenwich is in Colorado.
Quadibloc
Mainly, the reason you don't need to also have a separate accurate
clock to determine longitude from a GPS satellite signal... is because
one of the things a GPS signal includes _is_ the time. Which is indeed
compared against the expected orbital track of the satellite, so, yes,
the same principle is involved.
John Savard
Androcles
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:b9fff676-f9f6-4b46...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The plane was over London, the ship was in the Channel, the train
was in Folkstone and the car was in Dover. What time was it in
New York?
William Hamblen
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This page states the Antikythera was marked off in degrees and was
>accurate to within 1/4 of a degree:
>
>The Antikythera Device.
>http://efialtis.multiply.com/journal/item/108
Lunar distances was the only method of determining longitude from
astronomical observations that was available to the ancient Greeks.
Ptolemy's lunar theory gave lunar longitudes good to only 40 minutes
of arc. That much error in lunar distances works out to an error in
geographic longitude of 20 degrees. A quarter degree uncertainty in
the measurement of lunar distances works out to another 8 degrees of
uncertainty in geographic longitude. The Antikythera device would
have used the best mathematical astronomy they had, which was not good
enough to be useful for finding longitude.
They would have done better at sea by dead reckoning. On land they
would have paced off distances or counted the turns of a wheel.
Bud
Golden California Girls
plonk
Androcles
*counter plonk*
oriel36
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:17:40 -0700 (PDT), tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So, to determine longitude, instead of determining the precise
> >position of one orbiting moon at an exact time, GPS determines
> >longitude by determining the exact position of several of a fleet of
> >orbiting satellites at an exact time.
>
> >Same problem - the difference is only a difference of degree of
> >difficulty.
>
> I disagree that it's the same problem. The practical implementation of
> GPS involves time, but that time is not related to the way time is used
> to classically determine longitude.
The Earth rotates beneath Foucault's pendulum at the polar axis in
precisely 24 hours/360 degrees or 4 minutes for each degree of
geographical seperation with the maximum value of 4 minutes equaling
roughly 69 miles at the Equator.
Really,really silly people like yourself can argue against the
inviolate correlation between time,distance and rotation even though
the principles reflected by the motion of the Earth beneath a
Foucault's pendulum cannot alter.I now detest presenting the treatise
of Huygens which plainly and clearly demonstrate the correlation
between time,distance and planetary geometry but that remains the
final authority on the matter -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
An unreasonable person can justify the rotation of the Earth beneath
Foucault's pendulum at the polar axis in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds thereby cutting the correlation between 4 minutes of clock
time and 1 degree of geographical seperation,that would be you Chris
and the rest here.How you and your colleagues manage to do this I do
not know but then again you can invent a GPS Time seperate to clock
time that determines longitudes.even though you are going to have one
helluva job seperating the correlation of 4 minutes for each degree of
geographical seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.
It is not a matter of your muddleheaded Chris,it is the sheer volume
of people who agree with you and ignore the stable reasoning of people
like Huygens.
Sam Wormley
>
> An unreasonable person can justify the rotation of the Earth beneath
> Foucault's pendulum at the polar axis in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
> seconds ....
Now I understand your problem Kelleher. The earth rotates 360°
about its axis in one sidereal day.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SiderealDay.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
Robert Clark
> solar eclipses:
>
>
> It also showed the motion of the Sun and the Moon through the stars
> of the Zodiac, as well as giving the rising and setting time of these
> well known stars.
> Note that the time when a lunar or solar eclipse occurs is the same
> as saying when the Sun and Moon appear to meet in the sky. And the
> rising and setting time of stars and planets is when these appear to
> meet the Earth. Then that the Antikythera showed how the Sun and Moon
> moved through the constellations means it also accurately showed when
> the stars and planets met the Sun and the Moon.
> Since there were so many stars shown this gave a quick way of
> determining time and therefore longitude, that would have been much
> easier than measuring the angle between the Moon and stars or planets.
>
> Bob Clark
This page gives a graphic showing the apparent size of the Moon in
comparison to the size of the ecliptic:
Introduction To Lunar Occultations.
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~ipswich/Occultations/Occultation_intro.htm
Despite the visual size it appears to us it actually takes a small
portion of the sky for the stars it might occult. Nevertheless, the
page says there are about 850 stars it could occult.
Bob Clark
oriel36
The Wiki representation is incredible in brealing a dozen different
astronomical principles such as an equable 24 hour noon cycle,equable
distance from the Sun,equable orbital motion,a 3 minute 56 second
differential that req
Robert Clark
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
> <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In this post I discussed a method that 18th-century mariners might
> >have been able to use to solve the "problem of the longitude":
>
> your longitude within 1 degree, you need to know the time within 4
> minutes. The Moon is the fasting moving object in the sky and use it
> as a clock with an accuracy of 4 minutes of time you would need to
> measure its position within 2 arc-minutes. The ancients couldn't
> measure positions or compute lunar positions to anywhere like that
> accuracy. Ptolemy's star positions in the catalog in the Almagest
> were good to roughly 20 minutes of arc, from comparison of the
> cataloged figures to modern measures corrected for proper motion and
> precession to the date of the catalog. The lunar longitudes computed
> from his methods had errors around 40 arc-minutes.
>
> Bud
The ancients could have used water clocks to keep accurate time for
night time observations. Water clocks became more inaccurate if you
used a large reservoir of water to drain out at a prescribed rate
since the water pressure became less as the amount of water decreased.
But they could be accurate to within seconds if using a small amount
of water to measure time over shorter period of time. By repeatedly
using these shorter time periods their accuracy could be minutes over
a day.
According to Sobel in her book "Longitude", 18th-century mariners
could achieve about 1 minute accuracy in stellar positions using their
sextants given sufficiently calm seas. The ancient astronomers had use
of the astrolabe which is essentially the same as a sextant so I
presume on land they could achieve comparable accuracy. Remember they
only had to get this accuracy on land. These accurate measurements
could then be translated to diagrams shown on the Antikythera.
Hipparchus the greatest astronomy of antiquity was able to measure
the length of the year within 6 minutes. Hipparchus's observations and
works have been largely lost. Ptolemy working around 100 AD using
essentially the same instruments as Hipparchus was not nearly the
observer or theoretician as Hipparchus. It's possible Hipparchus made
more accurate observations.
Bob Clark
oriel36
After many years you understand my problem to be the demonstration of
the 24 hour/360 degree correlation between clock time,planetary
geometry and terrestrial longitudes,a problem I share with Huygens -
"And if this time of the day be the same with that observ'd where you
are, then you are under the same Meridian with the place, where the
Watches were set by the Sun; but if the time of the day, observ'd
where you are, be greater than that shew'd by the Watches, you may be
assur'd, that you are come under a more Easterly Meridian; and if
less, you are come under a more Westerly. And counting for every hour
of difference of time, 15 degrees of Longitude, and for every minute,
15. minutes or 1/4 of a degree, you shall then know, how many degrees,
minutes, &c. the said Meridians doe differ from one another."
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
You are welcome to believe that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees
in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds but then again you are welcome to
believe in a flat Earth and insofar as it is not just the fact itself
that is important but how the fact is arrived at,I will go along with
Huygens,Harrison and all the rest who worked off the correlation
between axial rotation,clock time,terrestrial longitudes and the daily
cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
I think the Wiki representation aptly demonstrates how bad things
actually are , for there you have an equable 24 hour noon
cycle,equable distance from the Sun,equable orbital motion,a 3 minute
56 second differential that requires the calendar system to work,ect
ect.Is it embarrassing ?.looking at all the responses is roughly the
same as looking at this participant on a game show with the difference
being that he does not pretend an interest in terrestrial/celestial
phenomena -
http://www.maniacworld.com/pitiful-answer-on-game-show.html
Your problem Sam is that you do not know there is a problem.
Chris L Peterson
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to Sobel in her book "Longitude", 18th-century mariners
>could achieve about 1 minute accuracy in stellar positions using their
>sextants given sufficiently calm seas. The ancient astronomers had use
>of the astrolabe which is essentially the same as a sextant so I
>presume on land they could achieve comparable accuracy.
The fundamental principle (measuring altitude) may be the same with both
a sextant and an astrolabe, but the two are far from "the same".
Achieving an accuracy of one degree on land is considered good with an
astrolabe; five degrees is typical for nautical accuracy.
oriel36
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
A civilisation that deserves such a title should at least know the
basic correlation between clock time,planetary geometry and the daily
cycle.For all the marvelous technological achievements,and the
invention of accurate clocks remains one of them,there can't be any
lower or worse situation than a group of people who believe that the
Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
and the reasoning behind that value.
I truly believe that astronomy,structural and timekeeping may be over
for decades or centuries given the sheer volume of people willing to
believe utter nonsense that has no basis in observation or reasoning -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
It is not because it is wrong or can be shown to be absurd,it is
because people are quite comfortable with the reasoning behind it even
though it generates a catastrophic situation where nothing
productive in astronomical or terrestrial investigations can
emerge.You made a statement that GPS time is different to clock time
as it is associated with longitudes and say it without receiving the
slightest objection when the core principles which link clokcs and the
daily cycle to terrestrial longitudes are inviolate in terms of 24
hours/360 degrees.
I have to ask.Is there some perverse satisfaction in believing in
reasoning that is so far below human standards that it genuine
qualifies as sub-human reasoning If a people knowingly opt for an
incorrect value and the reasoning behind it even though our
civilisation achieved the core principles of 24 hours/360 degrees many
centuries ago and we use those principles day in and day out,then we
no longer deserve the title of 'civilisation' regardless oif how
advanced our technological achievements are.
Steve Paul
> On Jul 21, 1:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> > > An unreasonable person can justify the rotation of the Earth beneath
> > > Foucault's pendulum at the polar axis in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
> > > seconds ....
>
> > Now I understand your problem Kelleher. The earth rotates 360°
> > about its axis in one sidereal day.
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SiderealDay.html
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
>
>
> in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
>
Take the Sun out of the picture all together, and set the meridian
reference for a 24 hour rotational period to a (much more) distant
star. If you then re-introduce the Sun, you would find that 24 hours
of rotation were insufficient to maintain the solar day.
You would have to add time to keep the Sun on the meridian at the same
time each day. That time would be 3 minutes 56 seconds. Then every
four years, you'd have to subtract a day to fix the calendar. Worse,
you'd have to try to calculate wall clock time based on a 24 hour 3
minute 56 second solar day.
I like the 24 hour clock day for simplicity sake, and the 23 hour 56
minutes 4 seconds sidereal day, so that I can figure out what stars
will be visible in the night sky tonight.
Rotation schmotation. Just pick a standard and stick with it.
Robert Clark
> same as looking at this participant on a game show with the difference
> being that he does not pretend an interest in terrestrial/celestial
> phenomena -
>
> http://www.maniacworld.com/pitiful-answer-on-game-show.html
>
Wow. That poor game show host. It was like he was aching to jump in
and say "It's the Moon. The Moon, that rotates around the Earth!"
What's even worse than the contestant getting the question wrong was
that 56% of the audience members said the Sun and only 42% said the
Moon. I guess we shouldn't feel so bad about the poor grade school
education in the U.S.
Bob Clark
spudnik
apparently, of the yearly revolution (at least,
not a direct, "linear" relationship to be seen -- and
why should there be?).
the daylength can always be defined as 24 hours,
regardless of the varying speed of rotation;
Verdi's classical tuning is middle C = 256 cycles per second;
A = 440Hz was established by the Nazis,
at a concert in London, 'cause "it's more brilliant
for the times!"
thus:
garbage, unless you consider the Alain Aspect version
of Schroedinger's undead cat (Erwin's little gedanken joke) viz-a-vu
the EPR paradox,
which is just an interpretation (that is,
the Copenhagen Schoolers' mystical write-up of this experiment;
the cat has been dead for a hundred years, so that
you probably wouldn't be able to find the putrid remains
of *that* particular ****, including the still-damp litter).
what possible phenomenon requires speeds over light,
other than scifi authorships?
> signalling, you should be able to entangle particles to produce
> instantaneous travel.
thus:
his statement could refer to raw coal rocks; I'm sure that
there is a tremendous variation in the darkness of seams
of coal!
> compare the number of stars you can see on a clear moonless night to
> the number of stars you can see on a night when there's a full moon.
thus:
conjuring scifi is silly; it has always been a haven
of supersillyousness or outright spookery, as per "flatland"
by the ridiculous A.A.Skwared, 4D BS from the British Pyschol.Society
etc., and
the latterday mongering of timespace -- the arbitrary spacialization
of time by means of a diagram, which is supposed to be an *aid*
to comprehension of phasespace, not a "reified" ideal of itself,
per Minkowski's youthful exhuberance. (y'know,
Minkowski's stuff is really mathematically worthwhile,
otherwise ... "no, please, don't, stop -- mathematics ?!?!")
*a priori* assumptions of megalithic structures on Venus,
like Hoagland's Balls on Mars foolishness,
really requires an actual program o'space to investigate, since
nature is capable of quite awesome geometries (or
'hype-D physiques,' or it's all ultimately geometry, anyway,
somehow, a la Plato or Bucky Fullerofit); however,
that was shotdown with Kennedy & Nixon:
just as with our nuclear energy, we are still using '50s technology
from the planet Marduk (per ScientologyTM .-)
> > You can consider them "multidimensional" beings who exist through time
> the clearly intelligent infrastructure that can be seen as rational
> and existing/coexisting on Venus?
thus:
that which causes the matter of "time slowing"
in acceleration, is really the same as matter being energy,
somehow, via their proportionality with c,
the speed of light; that's incredibly obvious, although
I know of no school of quantum, that says,
how many quants of light make a proton e.g. (and,
since the "photons" come in all sizes, it's moot .-)
in any case, this is one of the properties of light
that was experimentally verified in the 19th cce, although
it is carachteristically never even mentioned,
in favor of one of the EinsteinHubbleGodot paradoxi/
doctrines of the Department of Einsteinmania/
the Musical Department!
thus:
superstringtheory at least gets rid of that point,
from the get-go & without further a-do, even if
it's not just a string, a "one-dimensional object" ...
howsoever it is that matter bends space,
as measured by Gauss for the government of France
in the 19th cce, and experimentally adduced
by the classical Greek geometers, light travels
through this bent medium, which apparently also
alters the shape of it -- no timespace utterances needed,
it's so very, blatantly bended-up!
Roswell is a big double-entendre from WW2, but you could see that
those who embrace it could go no further. that is really the gist
of the "Lt.Col. Corso School" of Roswellology, that
virtually *all* of 20th cce science & technology
[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/]
came out of Corso's very own dyspersal of the pile of crap
that fell out of the sky, there, to "some big corporations;"
mayhap, he also wrote the first press-release -- too bad,
he had to wait til he was at death's door, to reap the deal
for the book.
that is to say,
humans are incapable of generating ideas ... or,
it just applies to Americans!
> > > Einstein was not a hoax, you are. There IS a Roswell hoax, there was
--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND;
NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526save_nations_parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html
> incorrect value and the reasoning behind it even though our
> civilisation achieved the core principles of 24 hours/360 degrees many
> centuries ago and we use those principles day in and day out,then we
> no longer deserve the title of 'civilisation' regardless oif how
> advanced our technological achievements are.
thus:
garbage, unless you consider the Alain Aspect version
of Schroedinger's undead cat (Erwin's little gedanken joke) viz-a-vu
the EPR paradox,
which is just an interpretation (that is,
the Copenhagen Schoolers' mystical write-up of this experiment;
the cat has been dead for a hundred years, so that
you probably wouldn't be able to find the putrid remains
of *that* particular ****, including the extremely damp litter).
what possible phenomenon requires speeds over light,
other than scifi authorships?
> How does that work?
>
> Well if you entangle photons in a weird way to produce instantaneous
> signalling, you should be able to entangle particles to produce
> instantaneous travel.
thus:
excellent quantifications; "BG" will never reply to it, I guess,
although
his statement could refer to raw coal rocks; I'm sure, though, that
there is a tremendous variation in the darkness of seams
of coal!
> For anyone who believes the moon is too dark to wash out stars -
> compare the number of stars you can see on a clear moonless night to
> the number of stars you can see on a night when there's a full moon.
thus:
conjuring scifi is silly; it has always been a haven
of supersillyousness or outright spookery, as per "flatland"
by the ridiculous A.A.Skwared, 4D BS from the British Pyschol.Society
etc., and
the latterday mongering of timespace -- the arbitrary spacialization
of time by means of a diagram, which is supposed to be an *aid*
to comprehension of phasespace, not a "reified" ideal of itself,
per Minkowski's youthful exhuberance. (y'know,
Minkowski's stuff is really mathematically worthwhile,
otherwise ... "no, please, don't, stop -- mathematics ?!?!")
*a priori* assumptions of megalithic structures on Venus,
like Hoagland's Balls on Mars foolishness,
really requires an actual program o'space to investigate, since
nature is capable of quite awesome geometries (or
'hype-D physiques'); however, that was shotdown with Kennedy & Nixon:
just as with our nuclear energy, we are still using '50s technology
from the planet Marduk (per ScientologyTM .-)
> > You can consider them "multidimensional" beings who exist through time
> the clearly intelligent infrastructure that can be seen as rational
> and existing/coexisting on Venus?
thus:
that which causes the matter of "time slowing"
in acceleration, is really the same as matter being energy,
somehow, via their proportionality with c,
the speed of light; that's incredibly obvious, although
I know of no school of quantum, that says,
how many quants of light make a proton e.g. (and,
since the "photons" come in all sizes, it's moot .-)
in any case, this is one of the properties of light
that was experimentally verified in the 19th cce, although
it is carachteristically never even mentioned,
in favor of one of the EinsteinHubbleGodot paradoxi/
doctrines of the Department of Einsteinmania/
the Musical Department!
thus:
superstringtheory at least gets rid of that point,
from the get-go & without further a-do, even if
it's not just a string, a "one-dimensional object" ...
howsoever it is that matter bends space,
as measured by Gauss for the government of France
in the 19th cce, and experimentally adduced
by the classical Greek geometers, light travels
through this bent medium, which apparently also
alters the shape of it -- no timespace utterances needed,
it's so very, blatantly bended-up!
Roswell is a big double-entendre from WW2, but you could see that
those who embrace it could go no further. that is really the gist
of the "Lt.Col. Corso School" of Roswellology, that
virtually *all* of 20th cce science & technology
[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/]
came out of Corso's very own dyspersal of the pile of crap
that fell out of the sky, there, to "some big corporations;"
mayhap, he also wrote the first press-release -- too bad,
he had to wait til he was at death's door, to reap the deal
for the book.
that is to say,
humans are incapable of generating ideas ... or,
it just applies to Americans!
> > > Einstein was not a hoax, you are. There IS a Roswell hoax, there was
--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND;
NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526save_nations_parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html
Robert Clark
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
You're probably right that in practice 5 degree accuracy would have
been likely on the sea. However, the interesting thing about the
Antikythera is that the astronomers on the land would only have to
have gotten the 1 degree accuracy then they would have included that
degree of accuracy into the gears of the mechanism.
I'm suggesting it might have been enough for the mariners only to
have observed the times on the Antikythera at which the lunar, Earth,
or solar occultations occurred, rather than the more difficult problem
of accurately measuring the angles from the deck of the rolling ship.
BTW, after a web search I found this web page with a letter Richard
Feynman wrote his family on a visit to Athens that shows he too was
startled by the degree of complexity of the mechanism:
Feynman & the Antikythera.
http://elzr.com/posts/feynman-the-antikythera
Bob Clark
Androcles
"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43cc09bc-e139-428b...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
can only count if they have enough fingers. And to think King Louis
Pasteur XIV taught that stupid Italian, Galileo, and that idiot German,
Kepler, all about the geocentric system.... Or was it Copernicus...
Chris L Peterson
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm suggesting it might have been enough for the mariners only to
>have observed the times on the Antikythera at which the lunar, Earth,
>or solar occultations occurred, rather than the more difficult problem
>of accurately measuring the angles from the deck of the rolling ship.
A different, but related question: was determination of longitude all
that important to sailors 2000 years ago? Most of the sea traffic was in
the Mediterranean, along routes that were seldom out of sight of land,
or along the Iberian or West Africa coastlines. I would think that the
longitude problem didn't become a _practical_ problem until the great
transoceanic voyages began, over 1000 years later.
Androcles
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:5c0a8496d6tcb59nc...@4ax.com...
A good point. Even if sight of land was lost through meeting a storm
one would still know in what direction land was last seen and navigate
by Polaris at night or the rising Sun by day once the storm had past.
Lodestones were known and the Vikings may have used feldspar to
sight the sun behind cloud, although much of their trade was by river,
notably the Danube and the Rhine.
http://www.nordskip.com/vikingcompass.html
Anyone that has done any sailing would know there is no urgency
to finding position at sea, you are not going to get far quickly even
if there was; there is plenty of time to take a sighting accurately
and repeat it if necessary. The rolling ship argument carries no weight
except in a small rowboat, a skilled navigator will hold an astrolabe
steady on the horizon even in a swell, he has "sea legs" and plenty
of training.
Sam Wormley
What problem?
Most amateur astronomers can make the measurement right from there
back yards... or even out the window. Accurately sight a star against
a reference anchored to the earth, such as a barn roof, utility pole,
etc. Note the time of emergence. Do the same star again the next night.
You say 24 hours, but I MEASURE 23:56:4.1
What do you measure Kelleher? You should try it... you might learn
something new under the night sky.
Quadibloc
> What problem?
>
> Most amateur astronomers can make the measurement right from there
> back yards... or even out the window. Accurately sight a star against
> a reference anchored to the earth, such as a barn roof, utility pole,
> etc. Note the time of emergence. Do the same star again the next night.
>
> You say 24 hours, but I MEASURE 23:56:4.1
>
> What do you measure Kelleher? You should try it... you might learn
> something new under the night sky.
Ah, but in his posts, he has explained that using the stars as a
standard is wrong-headed; it is astrological geometry! He believes the
return of a star - which he is happy to admit happens in 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds - is _irrelevant_ to the true axial rotation of
the Earth, which can only be determined by a completely different
approach.
But even he doesn't know what that approach is, since astronomy isn't
that advanced yet (it stagnated after Kepler because Newton confused
everybody).
John Savard
Steve Paul
> I have to ask.Is there some perverse satisfaction in believing in
> reasoning that is so far below human standards that it genuine
> qualifies as sub-human reasoning
Perverse satisifaction? I just (now) stumbled on this quote of yours
in the rec.motorcycles group, which I occasionally frequent as a
"biker".
/quote
"I followed a particpant through his posting history to this forum
and
I think it would be worthwhile to let bikers see what the fuss is
about in the sci.astro.amateur forum where I normally post.The skill
of judging motions and especially motion around a circuit is just a
normal thing for bikers..."
/end quote
You're actually going out of your way to track down a
sci.astro.amateur user and harassing the users of other online
communities with completely off topic subject matter. That's not only
perverse, it's obsessive. You should really be ashamed of yourself.
How low can you go?
That's it for me. I'm completely done with you now. Buh bye.
-Steve
oriel36
> On Jul 21, 1:24 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > oriel36 wrote:
> > > > An unreasonable person can justify the rotation of the Earth beneath
> > > > Foucault's pendulum at the polar axis in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
> > > > seconds ....
>
> > > Now I understand your problem Kelleher. The earth rotates 360°
> > > about its axis in one sidereal day.
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SiderealDay.html
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
>
> > You are welcome to believe that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees
> > in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
>
> > Your problem Sam is that you do not know there is a problem.
>
> Take the Sun out of the picture all together, and set the meridian
> reference for a 24 hour rotational period to a (much more) distant
> star. If you then re-introduce the Sun, you would find that 24 hours
> of rotation were insufficient to maintain the solar day.
>
Let me give you lesson in how a true astronomer approaches this and
how it actually happens that the correlation between
clocks,terrestrial longitudes and the rotational cycle remain
inviolate despite the utter stupidity that attaches itself to tyhe
value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
The Equation of Time represents a very,very old astronomical principle
that the noopn cycles are observed to be unequl despite the dismal
belief that the noon cycoles are equal among those who chase the
'sidereal time' rainbow -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
The Equation opf Time equalises the variations in the natural noon
cycle to an equyable 24 hour cycle as a weighed average against the
annual orbital cycle.This is difinitiove and if you want to hear it
from Huygens then here it is -
" 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://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
There are no loopholes,there are no escape clauses,the natural noon
cycle is unequal,the 24 hour cycle is a human devised primciple which
not only creates the 24 hour cycle but keeps these cycles elapsing
seamlessly into each other.Because this explanationi definitive,I will
write in capital letters the two most important points as an exception
in all my years posting on the usenet -
THERE IS NO EXTERNAL CYCLICAL REFERENCE FOR THE AVERAGE 24 HOUR
CYCLE .
When Copernicus resolved the apparent retrograde motion of the other
planets by assigning an orbital motion to the Earth it left axial
rotation to explain the daily cycle.The brilliant,do you hear,the
brilliant maneuver of the astronomical timekeepers was to transfer the
Equation of Time principles which create the 'average' 24 hour day to
axial rotation as a 'constant'.,hence important poiunt nuimber two
which meshes with the other important point -
THERE IS NO EXTERNAL CYCLICAL REFERENCE FOR CONSTANT AXIAL ROTATION
The average 24 hour day is broken into hours, minutes, and seconds
which can be divided longitudionally through 360 degrees where 4
minutes equal 1 degree of longitude and 24 hours /360 degrees in
total.The Equation of Time principles maintain the 24 hour day,keepo
the cycles constant,transfer it to the average/constant axial cycle as
a convenience but not as an observed 'fact' as the siderealists or
celestial sphere astrologers try to do.
> You would have to add time to keep the Sun on the meridian at the same
> time each day. That time would be 3 minutes 56 seconds. Then every
> four years, you'd have to subtract a day to fix the calendar. Worse,
> you'd have to try to calculate wall clock time based on a 24 hour 3
> minute 56 second solar day.
>
In the end you wqill still believe that a location rotates through 360
degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and I woild have nothing to
gain by being seen to argue at such a low level.
> I like the 24 hour clock day for simplicity sake, and the 23 hour 56
> minutes 4 seconds sidereal day, so that I can figure out what stars
> will be visible in the night sky tonight.
>
> Rotation schmotation. Just pick a standard and stick with it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good for you.
oriel36
100% of participants here who profess an interest in astronomy do not
know how clocks are kept in sync with the axial; cycle at 24 hours 360
degrees without the need of an external cyclical reference or believe
that the Earth rotates to noon every 24 hours -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Whatever you may think of the contestant on the game show,you are far
worse by virtue of the value for axial rotation through 360 degrees
and the reasoning which leads you to that value.
Of course you have no sense that there is a problem and that is where
the crisis is.
oriel36
The crisis is not knowing there is a problem whereas the resolution of
the problem is dealing with the matter.You belong to the former and
cannot be helped and are welcome to believe in things that reasonable
people generally would not however it still leaves me to explain why
Flamsteed was wrong in jumping to a stupid conclusion One of the major
problems is that it is not even difficult to disprove.
For a star to return to a location 3 mninutes 56 seconds earlier
without fail requires the calendar saystem to work,the convenient
system which collects the fraction of days based on 365 days 5 hours
49 minutes and reworks it into a system of 3 years of 365 daysd and 1
year of 366 days.
Now somewhere at the bottom of your brain you probably have some sort
of inkling that the calendar system is not a good way to describe the
annual orbital motion of the Earth .but then again,you probably have
convinced yourself that the 3 minutes 56 second difference does not
need the 365/366 day system.What person here,at least who have the
ability to think for themselves,can find a way to justify the 3 minute
56 second difference without the need of the leap day every 4th
year ?.The answer is that you cannot and that is why the
representation,the reasoning and the phony value is a fraud -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
> Most amateur astronomers can make the measurement right from there
> back yards... or even out the window. Accurately sight a star against
> a reference anchored to the earth, such as a barn roof, utility pole,
> etc. Note the time of emergence. Do the same star again the next night.
>
And the next night and the next night andf when it comes to Feb 29th
in the 4th year it will still return 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier
just like the night before because the reasoning is calendrically
based !!.Do you really believe you are basing the orbital motion of
the Earth on 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes when you are actually basing
it on the calendar system of equable days .If you did not insert the
leap day correction,you 3 minute 56 second correlation would fail and
that is why the whole scheme is fraudulent.
> You say 24 hours, but I MEASURE 23:56:4.1
>
> What do you measure Kelleher? You should try it... you might learn
> something new under the night sky.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Using a starreturning 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier as a means for
justifying axial and orbital motion of the Earth is no better or
worse than a flat Earth.The crisis exists in not knowing there is a
problem but after that it becomes a matter of dealing with it.If you
cannot raise your reasoning to the point of view of the 3 minutes 56
second difference expressed against the calendar system then you are
perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want.
Sam Wormley
Aaaaah, so Kelleher is really a true looony!
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
No problem Sam,you are perfectly entitled to believe what you want and
if you see a star returning 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier tonight than
last night and believe that this represents axial rotation and orbital
motion then good for you -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Maybe you can stick a smiley face on the Sun to complete the cartoon
conception for the Earth's axial and orbital motion but as a matter of
astronomical substance,you may as well believe in a flate Earth.
Looking at the matter from the point of view of a 3 minute 56 second
difference that never fails and seeing that it needs the equable
365/366 days of the calendar system to work,we leave the realm of
astronomy and enter the cartoon world of astrologers .I enjoyed the
challenge of working out why Flamsteed was wrong by dirtectly linking
axial rotation and subsequently orbital motion to the return of a
star but again,that is no longer astronomy.
oriel36
> "Robert Clark" <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Galileo knew all too well that people can adopt the worse possible
views but it does not happen that such people gain dominance like the
strangehold structural astrologers have now on astronomy.How it comes
to be that heliocentric reasoning remains in ruins while astrological
conceptions flourish hardly compares with the sheer gloating that no
objections are raised to the most ridiculous of notions suchg as the
'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion.
Maybe an intelligent person can acknowledge what Galileo is saying and
then identify themselves meaninglfully by fighting these false
ideologies which are so intellectually poor as to be almost sub-
human .
Here you go John,remember,you are among those whom Galileo finds
objectionable because when you put your sticks in the ground and
justify axial rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,no amount of
reasoning can convince you or the rest here how utterly silly that it
-
SALV. "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I
have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so
much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself.
SAGR. I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its
premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should
have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a
conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No
good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent
that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous. Therefore
let us continue with our good Simplicio, who has long been known to me
as a man of great ingenuity and entirely without malice. Besides, he
is intimately familiar with the Peripatetic doctrine, and I am sure
that whatever he does not think up in support of Aristotle's opinion
is not I likely to occur to anybody." Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems, 1632 Galileo
Start with an idea that the Earth axial rotation is 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds and everything else becomes impossible.
Golden California Girls
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
> <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm suggesting it might have been enough for the mariners only to
>> have observed the times on the Antikythera at which the lunar, Earth,
>> or solar occultations occurred, rather than the more difficult problem
>> of accurately measuring the angles from the deck of the rolling ship.
>
> A different, but related question: was determination of longitude all
> that important to sailors 2000 years ago? Most of the sea traffic was in
> the Mediterranean, along routes that were seldom out of sight of land,
> or along the Iberian or West Africa coastlines. I would think that the
> longitude problem didn't become a _practical_ problem until the great
> transoceanic voyages began, over 1000 years later.
Chicken and egg.
If you don't know where you are, how can you get back home, hence you must stay
in sight of land.
Chris L Peterson
<gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>Chicken and egg.
>
>If you don't know where you are, how can you get back home, hence you must stay
>in sight of land.
But I don't think the lack of a solution to the longitude problem was
what kept earlier people from aggressively exploring the world. Most
shipping was commercial or military, and it was mostly happening where
the action was: the Mediterranean, and some well populated coastlines.
It's pretty hard there to avoid seeing land. You don't much need to
determine latitude, either.
Androcles
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:912c8494j36p7v9lh...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:10:36 GMT, Golden California Girls
| <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
|
| >Chicken and egg.
| >
| >If you don't know where you are, how can you get back home, hence you
must stay
| >in sight of land.
|
| But I don't think the lack of a solution to the longitude problem was
| what kept earlier people from aggressively exploring the world. Most
| shipping was commercial or military, and it was mostly happening where
| the action was: the Mediterranean, and some well populated coastlines.
| It's pretty hard there to avoid seeing land.
Hmm... Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer, lived in Alexandria in about
165- 85 BCE.
How many miles is it from Alexandria to Athens as the crow flies?
Google Earth says 584 miles.
How far out to sea do you need to be to lose sight of land? About 12 miles.
Crossing the English Channel in a ferry, a mere 21 miles, very difficult to
see the coast from the mid-point due to fog/haze.
Yes, one can see the coast of France from the white cliffs of Dover,
300' above sea level on a clear day. You can't see the coast of France
from Dover harbour, it is below the horizon. No ships have 300'
masts, not even today's ocean liners. Coast hugging is also dangerous.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are WAY off base.
dke...@hotmail.com
---snip---
>
> Start with an idea that the Earth axial rotation is 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds and everything else becomes impossible.
OK
I create a new time standard. On this date, I create a clock that
has 64 Caperns per axial revolution. 64 is a nice power of two.
Now, how do I know when to go to work?
How do I know when to bring out my telescope to observe planet or
stars?
How do I know when to plant my crops?
I reference this to the most accurate clock I can find but as the
years
go by, the rotation of the Earth slows slightly and it is no longer in
synch with the clocks. What do I do now?
What did I do wrong? Why is my clock no better than the original
24 solar hour clock? Save me Gerald!!
Dwight
Chris L Peterson
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>Hmm... Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer, lived in Alexandria in about
>165- 85 BCE.
> How many miles is it from Alexandria to Athens as the crow flies?
>Google Earth says 584 miles.
>
>How far out to sea do you need to be to lose sight of land? About 12 miles.
>
>Crossing the English Channel in a ferry, a mere 21 miles, very difficult to
>see the coast from the mid-point due to fog/haze.
>
>Yes, one can see the coast of France from the white cliffs of Dover,
>300' above sea level on a clear day. You can't see the coast of France
>from Dover harbour, it is below the horizon. No ships have 300'
>masts, not even today's ocean liners. Coast hugging is also dangerous.
>
>I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are WAY off base.
I was just bringing up a point of discussion. Maybe knowing latitude and
longitude was very important to these ancient mariners, but I'm not
convinced of that. Of course, you can lose site of land in the
Mediterranean. But the weather tends to be good, and voyages are short
enough that simple dead reckoning is all you should usually need. I
think it would be rare to truly lose your way in the Mediterranean.
Androcles
Yeah, but those guys wrote "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here"
over/on the door of Plato's academy. They were far from fools when it
came to mathematics (or anything else for that matter). A pleasure cruise
in sight of land around the Greek Islands, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon,
Palestine and Egypt to Alexandria would be about 1500 miles, but for
trading purposes the direct route is only about 600. We are talking
Bronze and Iron Age here, forges and looms for cloth and leather shoes
and combs for hair and mirrors and jewellery and temples and fine
statues and wine and agriculture and cities... these were not primitive
people. Take a look at an ancient Egyptian coffin. The carpentry is
excellent, mitred corners, dowels, rabbets. That needs a saw. Saws
have teeth. You are not far from a gear when you can cut teeth on a
saw, you are just making a circular saw.
I have no trouble at all in believing the Antikythera device was a
navigational aid, the metal working capability was there and so was
the mathematics and the geometry. The pity of it is it corroded.
Look at the detail in this metal work:
http://www.reader.travel/ReaderNew/ReaderImages/tutankhamun.jpg
Modern historians focus too much on the religious aspects of
ancient cultures, they are blind to the scientific and technological
aspects and as a result we get dumb questions like "Could the Antikythera
have been used to determine longitude?" as if it were too incredible to be
believed.
Chris L Peterson
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>Yeah, but those guys wrote "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here"
>over/on the door of Plato's academy...
That's why I was careful in my original question to emphasize the
_practical_ value of determining longitude. That there was mathematical
interest in these matters is a given. I just don't know how much your
average ship captain was concerned about it. For instance, would he be
willing to use valuable space for a specialized navigator? (I don't
expect too may people in that time could do complex navigational
calculations, even providing methods had been developed.)
dke...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:55:27 +0100, "Androcles"
>
Hi
It may have been more use to map makers than sailors.
Dwight
Chris L Peterson
>Modern historians focus too much on the religious aspects of
>ancient cultures, they are blind to the scientific and technological
>aspects and as a result we get dumb questions like "Could the Antikythera
>have been used to determine longitude?" as if it were too incredible to be
>believed.
I didn't take the question to have that tone at all. It's a reasonable
question to pose, and the evident technology certainly means that these
people were either able, or weren't far, from being able to construct a
complex navigational device.
But I think the evidence is much stronger for this being an astronomical
or astrological device than a navigational one. It seems likely that the
ability to make accurate enough measurements to actually use the device
navigationally didn't yet exist.
Androcles
| On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:55:27 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >Yeah, but those guys wrote "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here"
| >over/on the door of Plato's academy...
|
| (I don't
| expect too may people in that time could do complex navigational
| calculations, even providing methods had been developed.)
| _________________________________________________
You've made my point. In your pathetic ignorance you've snipped the
part where I said:
"Modern historians focus too much on the religious aspects of
ancient cultures, they are blind to the scientific and technological
aspects and as a result we get dumb questions like "Could the Antikythera
have been used to determine longitude?" as if it were too incredible to be
believed."
What you "do not expect" is nothing more than your own prejudice,
you really do believe the ancients were Cherokee or Apache living in
tepees and hunting bison with bow and arrow instead of the creators of
this:
http://theallseeingeye.tv/parthenon-and-the-acropolis-landmark-1.jpg
and this:
http://www.tourgroups.com/jsv/2001/coliseum.gif
and this:
http://ncowie.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/sphinx.jpg
I've snipped your questions, you are not worth bothering with.
*plonk*
Steve Willner
In article <5f5b3609-7af3-41ac...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Could the ancient Mariners have found instead from the Antikythera
> the times when the planets rose from the horizon and when they set?
> Quite key here is the length of time it takes for the planet to
> complete its orbit.
You want the synodic period, not the sidereal period, for this, but
planets move far too slowly to be useful.
> for the planets as the Earth rotates it takes time
> and during that time the planets will have moved in their orbits, so
> their rising/setting time will be different for different locations
> on the Earth.
Determining longitude to one degree requires knowing the (equivalent
of) standard time to within 4 minutes. The Moon moves about 30
arcminutes in an hour. The accuracy requirement is thus 2 arcmin
total error, allowing perhaps 1 arcmin for the measurement and 1
arcmin for the ephemeris (calculated position). Without optics, the
former might barely be achievable from the best land-based
observatories (think Tycho Brahe) but not from ships at sea. It
would take some digging to find out exactly when arcminute-accuracy
lunar ephemerides became available, but my _guess_ would be late 19th
century (Simon Newcomb). As I wrote in an earlier post, calculating
lunar positions is really hard. (Predicting eclipses is much
easier.)
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)
oriel36
It is so enjoyable to see where the 3 minute 56 second difference
fails as a means of explaining axial and orbital motion due to it
being based on the equable days (365/366 day) of the calendar system
hence the fraudulent 'sidereal time' structure where the noon cycles
are 24 hours exactly,where the Earth keeps the same distance from the
Sun,where orbital motion is equalble and all the other joys of
astrological thinking -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
How a group of people emerged to temporarily destroy the accepted
correlation between clocks,terrestial longitude and the daily cycle
at 24 hoiurs/360 degrees may shock people in future or rather,their
acceptance of an alternate value with the most dismal reasoning ever
seen on the planet.
oriel36
> [irrelevant newsgroups snipped]
>
> Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Could the ancient Mariners have found instead from the Antikythera
> > the times when the planets rose from the horizon and when they set?
> > Quite key here is the length of time it takes for the planet to
> > complete its orbit.
>
> You want the synodic period, not the sidereal period, for this, but
> planets move far too slowly to be useful.
>
> > for the planets as the Earth rotates it takes time
> > and during that time the planets will have moved in their orbits, so
> > their rising/setting time will be different for different locations
> > on the Earth.
>
> Determining longitude to one degree requires knowing the (equivalent
> of) standard time to within 4 minutes.
Go on....
Thgat was done by recognising that the natural noon cycles are not 24
hours and equalising the variations to an equable 24 hour cycle which
in turn elapses constantly into the next 24 hour cycle as a weighed
average against the annual orbital cycle -
" 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://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
A man of reasonable intelligence then looks at what is on offer
through those who believe in a 3 minute 56 second difference using
the motions of the Earth where the natural noon cycle is proposed as
constantly 24 hours -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Maybe Galileo is right after all -
SALV. "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I
have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so
much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself. "
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632 Galileo
The Moon moves about 30
> arcminutes in an hour. The accuracy requirement is thus 2 arcmin
> total error, allowing perhaps 1 arcmin for the measurement and 1
> arcmin for the ephemeris (calculated position). Without optics, the
> former might barely be achievable from the best land-based
> observatories (think Tycho Brahe) but not from ships at sea. It
> would take some digging to find out exactly when arcminute-accuracy
> lunar ephemerides became available, but my _guess_ would be late 19th
> century (Simon Newcomb). As I wrote in an earlier post, calculating
> lunar positions is really hard. (Predicting eclipses is much
> easier.)
>
> --
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
Spaceman
> It is so enjoyable to see where the 3 minute 56 second difference
> fails as a means of explaining axial and orbital motion due to it
> being based on the equable days (365/366 day) of the calendar system
> hence the fraudulent 'sidereal time' structure where the noon cycles
> are 24 hours exactly,where the Earth keeps the same distance from the
> Sun,where orbital motion is equalble and all the other joys of
> astrological thinking -
>
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
>
> How a group of people emerged to temporarily destroy the accepted
> correlation between clocks,terrestial longitude and the daily cycle
> at 24 hoiurs/360 degrees may shock people in future or rather,their
> acceptance of an alternate value with the most dismal reasoning ever
> seen on the planet.
The same group of people also think the shortest distance between
two points is a curved line and they think atomic clocks are immune
to gravity even though they change rate when they are accelerated
or moved to a different gravitational potential.
What else would you expect from such peoples thaught methods
Or should I say, not thinking methods.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
oriel36
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > It is so enjoyable to see where the 3 minute 56 second difference
> > fails as a means of explaining axial and orbital motion due to it
> > being based on the equable days (365/366 day) of the calendar system
> > hence the fraudulent 'sidereal time' structure where the noon cycles
> > are 24 hours exactly,where the Earth keeps the same distance from the
> > Sun,where orbital motion is equalble and all the other joys of
> > astrological thinking -
>
>
>
>
> > How a group of people emerged to temporarily destroy the accepted
> > correlation between clocks,terrestial longitude and the daily cycle
> > at 24 hoiurs/360 degrees may shock people in future or rather,their
> > acceptance of an alternate value with the most dismal reasoning ever
> > seen on the planet.
>
> The same group of people also think the shortest distance between
> two points is a curved line and they think atomic clocks are immune
> to gravity even though they change rate when they are accelerated
> or moved to a different gravitational potential.
> What else would you expect from such peoples thaught methods
> Or should I say, not thinking methods.
> :)
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
You have to believe me James when I tell you that I have little
interest in being drawn into their exotic concepts when basic
astronomical facts seem to be beyond them such as how clocks are kept
in sync with the daily cycle and then used to determine distance based
on the idea that 4 minutes equals 1 degree of geographical seperation
(longitude) and therefore 24 hours/360 degrees.This is supposed to be
the most basic known fact,one that is so well documented that I hardly
know what to do to alter their view away from phony reasoning based on
a different 'sidereal time' value.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
You can be driven half crazy trying to get people to notice that there
is a huge problem and most of it is in basic stuff that is
enjoyable.If people give the smallest effort to understand Huygens
they would run a mile from the 'clock theories' such as relativity or
the clockwork solar system of Newton,not just because they are false
but because they obscure genuine work and appreciation of nature.
Am I supposed to be impressed that they can knowingly ignore a basic
fact and accept something silly?,the answer is that I will be
impressed when I see somebody else actually support the reasoning
which links clocks to planetary geometry at 24 hours/360 degrees .I
know something about this James and most of the exotic junk dumped
into the celestial arena like 'warped space and time travel owe their
existence to that terrible mistake made by Flamsteed in drawing a
false conclusion about axial rotation,basically he created an
astrological framework that Newton built on and the other guys in the
early 20th century extended.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> The same group of people also think the shortest distance between
> two points is a curved line and they think atomic clocks are immune
> to gravity even though they change rate when they are accelerated
> or moved to a different gravitational potential.
> What else would you expect from such peoples thaught methods
> Or should I say, not thinking methods.
> :)
There are the obvious effects of gravity, which are small for atomic
clocks when they're not subjected to such high accelerations or
gravities as might damage them... and there are the effects which
classical physics cannot explain, involving changes in gravitational
potential without a change in the local acceleration felt; these
effects are not due to the atomic clock behaving differently, but
being where time itself runs more slowly or more quickly, because all
kinds of clock are affected the same way by them, robust or fragile.
General relativity wasn't arrived at by not thinking because tensor
calculus is too hard to do if you can't think. But Mr. Kelleher seems
to have found a kindred spirit here... I'm sorry to say.
John Savard
oriel36
The sad part of it all is that the feebleminded have no problem using
the insights of genuine people to support the exotic junk such as
relativity,even though the inventor to the atomic clok hated that
relativity junk -
http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
The same with Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo ect,all are used like puppets
to support ideas which are contrary to their genuine discoveries and
I can't think of a worse intellectual crime than that.In the end it
hardly matters,for all the hype and jargon,I am still waiting for
someone who can grasp why the value for axial rotation through 360
degrees is not 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,not by a long chalk..
Spaceman
> On Jul 23, 1:26 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>
>> The same group of people also think the shortest distance between
>> two points is a curved line and they think atomic clocks are immune
>> to gravity even though they change rate when they are accelerated
>> or moved to a different gravitational potential.
>> What else would you expect from such peoples thaught methods
>> Or should I say, not thinking methods.
>> :)
>
> There are the obvious effects of gravity, which are small for atomic
> clocks when they're not subjected to such high accelerations or
> gravities as might damage them... and there are the effects which
> classical physics cannot explain, involving changes in gravitational
> potential without a change in the local acceleration felt; these
> effects are not due to the atomic clock behaving differently, but
> being where time itself runs more slowly or more quickly, because all
> kinds of clock are affected the same way by them, robust or fragile.
Wow,
So you take a clock that has a different time on the face,
and say it did not change rate even though a different clock
shows that at least one of them, or both of them, did physically
and emperically change rate.
Instead you call it "time changing rate" instead of a clock malfunction.
That is pretty silly.
I feel sorry for your complete removal of a scientific single standard
for a "second" and your acceptance of a multiple standard for
the second rate as a good way to measure things.
Please do not ever drive a starship with your "malfunctioning clock".
You won't last too long without crashing into something that is not
there yet according to your "malfunctioning" clock.
:)
> General relativity wasn't arrived at by not thinking because tensor
> calculus is too hard to do if you can't think. But Mr. Kelleher seems
> to have found a kindred spirit here... I'm sorry to say.
No It simply proves Mr Kelleher can actually think beyond a ROM mempry
capacity and was not completely brainwashed like the typicle "relativist"
was
to think "time" can have multiple standards at all.
Again, I feel sorry for you when you "come home late for dinner"
because your clock malfunctioned, yet it supposedly worked
properly in it's frame of reference according to you and the rubber ruler
world you seem to "worship" without self thought of your own
about using multiple standards for a measurement system.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> It simply proves Mr Kelleher can actually think beyond a ROM mempry
> capacity and was not completely brainwashed like the typicle "relativist"
> was to think "time" can have multiple standards at all.
Well, if I carry a clock with me up a mountain, and at the top of the
mountain, the clock seems to work just as well as it did on the
ground, and other things happen the same when I'm watching them happen
up there... but yet the clock *and I* both move slower up there, and
the effect is consistent for all different types of clocks, even if I
carry them up the mountain really carefully, then it seems like
something _has_ happened to slow stuff down which is separate from the
kind of causality that makes a clock run slower because it needs oil.
Of course, I _was_ brainwashed quite thoroughly, and in the best way.
I actually *understand* some of this stuff, having taken a good second-
year course in special relativity.
John Savard
Spaceman
> On Jul 23, 2:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> It simply proves Mr Kelleher can actually think beyond a ROM mempry
>> capacity and was not completely brainwashed like the typicle
>> "relativist" was to think "time" can have multiple standards at all.
>
> Well, if I carry a clock with me up a mountain, and at the top of the
> mountain, the clock seems to work just as well as it did on the
> ground, and other things happen the same when I'm watching them happen
> up there... but yet the clock *and I* both move slower up there, and
> the effect is consistent for all different types of clocks, even if I
> carry them up the mountain really carefully, then it seems like
> something _has_ happened to slow stuff down which is separate from the
> kind of causality that makes a clock run slower because it needs oil.
Actually carrying it slower or faster will change the rate it changes
on the way up, and once up there it will settle to the new rate it
established
at the lower gravitational potential that is there.
> Of course, I _was_ brainwashed quite thoroughly, and in the best way.
> I actually *understand* some of this stuff, having taken a good
> second- year course in special relativity.
I am sorry you were brainwashed so well.
Maybe you will re-join science that uses a single standard
for time some day.
(along with the single standard for distance also)
until then.
Like I say.
Don't go driving any starships.
The planets and the entire universe don't care about your slowed clock.
Dr J R Stockton
Jul 2008 18:24:12, Steve Willner <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> posted:
>
>Determining longitude to one degree requires knowing the (equivalent
>of) standard time to within 4 minutes. The Moon moves about 30
>arcminutes in an hour. The accuracy requirement is thus 2 arcmin
>total error, allowing perhaps 1 arcmin for the measurement and 1
>arcmin for the ephemeris (calculated position). Without optics, the
>former might barely be achievable from the best land-based
>observatories (think Tycho Brahe) but not from ships at sea. It
>would take some digging to find out exactly when arcminute-accuracy
>lunar ephemerides became available, but my _guess_ would be late 19th
>century (Simon Newcomb). As I wrote in an earlier post, calculating
>lunar positions is really hard. (Predicting eclipses is much
>easier.)
But see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28navigation%29>,
which says that longitude to a quarter of a degree could be obtained.
Read Patrick O'Brian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Brian>.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Robert Clark
> On Jul 21, 2:03 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
> > <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > According to Sobel in her book "Longitude", 18th-century mariners
> > >could achieve about 1 minute accuracy in stellar positions using their
> > >sextants given sufficiently calm seas. The ancient astronomers had use
> > >of the astrolabe which is essentially the same as a sextant so I
> > >presume on land they could achieve comparable accuracy.
>
> > The fundamental principle (measuring altitude) may be the same with both
> > a sextant and an astrolabe, but the two are far from "the same".
> > Achieving an accuracy of one degree on land is considered good with an
> > astrolabe; five degrees is typical for nautical accuracy.
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
>
> been likely on the sea. However, the interesting thing about the
> Antikythera is that the astronomers on the land would only have to
> have gotten the 1 degree accuracy then they would have included that
> degree of accuracy into the gears of the mechanism.
> I'm suggesting it might have been enough for the mariners only to
> have observed the times on the Antikythera at which the lunar, Earth,
> or solar occultations occurred, rather than the more difficult problem
> of accurately measuring the angles from the deck of the rolling ship.
> Feynman wrote his family on a visit to Athens that shows he too was
> startled by the degree of complexity of the mechanism:
>
> Feynman & the Antikythera.http://elzr.com/posts/feynman-the-antikythera
>
> Bob Clark
Actually I should have said "1 minute of arc accuracy" for stellar
positions for astronomers on land and perhaps 5 arc-minutes for
mariners on the sea, using the methods of measuring angles available
to the ancients, the astrolabe.
However, for using this for determining longitude the ancient
astronomers would have needed an accurate method of measuring time. I
found this article that shows Hipparchus appears to have been able to
make time measurements to within 1 minute on the clock:
MEASUREMENT OF TIME
Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V26, Page 987 of the 1911 Encyclopedia
Britannica
"The ancient astronomers, although they have left us very ample
information about their dials, water or sand clocks (clepsydrae), and
similar timekeepers, are very reticent as to how these were
controlled.
Ptolemy, in his Almagest, states nothing whatever as to how the time
was found when the numerous astronomical phenomena which he records
took place; but Hipparchus, in the only book we possess from his hand,
gives a list of 44 stars scattered over the sky at intervals of right
ascension equal to exactly one hour, so that one or more of them would
be on the meridian at the commencement of every sidereal hour. H.C.
"F.C. Schjellerup' has shown that the right ascensions assumed by
Hipparchus agree within about 15' or one minute of time with those
calculated back to the year 140 B.C. from modern star-places and
proper motions . The accuracy which, it thus appears, could be
attained by the ancients in their determinations of time was far
beyond what they seem to have considered necessary, as they only
record astronomical phenomena (e.g. eclipses, occultations) as having
occurred " towards the middle of the third hour," or " about 88 hours
of the night," without ever giving minutes.""
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/THE_TOO/TIME_MEASUREMENT_OF.html
The 15' accuracy means the accuracy of where the star was given to
be at a specified time. It is this that allows modern researchers to
conclude Hipparchus must have had a timing method accurate to within 1
minute of time during the day. For only determining the position,
Hipparchus was probably able to determine this within 1 arc-minute.
It is notable that 15' or 1/4 degree is the accuracy given for the
markings on the Antikythera device as discussed here:
The Antikythera Device.
http://efialtis.multiply.com/journal/item/108
Note that once the astronomers on land made the accurate position and
time measurements and incorporated this into the Antikythera
mechanism, the mariners could have made their deductions for the
longitude using the mechanism without having to measure this degree of
accuracy in the stellar positions and time.
Bob Clark
Chris L Peterson
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually I should have said "1 minute of arc accuracy" for stellar
>positions for astronomers on land and perhaps 5 arc-minutes for
>mariners on the sea, using the methods of measuring angles available
>to the ancients, the astrolabe.
I strongly doubt that this degree of accuracy would be possible with a
classical astrolabe. On land, a skilled user might get around 1 degree.
Modern devices, of similar size and using vernier scales and magnified
optics might get 15 arcminutes.
Have you tried using an astrolabe? Even getting one to hang vertically
within a degree is tough, and then you have only a crude pointer to
align on a target.
Steve Willner
Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes:
> But see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28navigation%29>,
> which says that longitude to a quarter of a degree could be obtained.
Nice article. I'm surprised that lunar positions could be computed
so accurately in the 18th century, but I have no reason to believe
the article is wrong. There was, of course, enormous economic and
military incentive to perform the calculations.
Both the computations and the angle measurements would have been
impossible in Greek/Roman times.
oriel36
> In article <bjsT6DBh0FiIF...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
> Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes:> But see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28navigation%29>,
> > which says that longitude to a quarter of a degree could be obtained.
>
> [in the 18th century]
>
> Nice article. I'm surprised that lunar positions could be computed
> so accurately in the 18th century, but I have no reason to believe
> the article is wrong. There was, of course, enormous economic and
> military incentive to perform the calculations.
>
> Both the computations and the angle measurements would have been
> impossible in Greek/Roman times.
>
> --
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
> (Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
> valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
> email may be sent to your ISP.)
The reckoning of angles for terrestrial purposes and fixed by the
celestial framework was known millenia before the Greeks -
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/pyramid_alignment.htm
Even a thousand years before the Great Pyramid they were using fixed
cyclical astronomical events to leave a legacy for astronomical
knowledge -
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/roofbox.htm
There is no way any modern person could build a roofbox like that
considering that you base the annual cycle on a Ra/Dec calendrical
framework of 365/366 days,believe that the noon cycles are equal via
the 'sidereal time' justification.How can a Harvard person be so
dumb ?.
oriel36
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:51:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
None of you can picked yur way through the technical details or
rather,cannot set aside one set of calendrically based principles to
allow the core of the modern principles,such as espoused by Huygens to
emerge.In a way,I can almost see the train wreck of Flamsteed's
conclusion for axial rotation occuring historically by reading Chaucer
-
"The bordure of which wombe-side is devyded fro the poynt of the est
lyne un-to the poynt of the south lyne under the ring, in 90 degrees;
and by that same proporcioun is ever quarter devyded as is the bak-
syde, that amonteth 360 degrees. And understond wel, that degrees of
this bordure ben answering and consentrik to the degrees of the
Equinonxial, that is devyded in the same nombre as every othere cercle
is in the heye hevene. This same bordure is devyded also with 23
lettres, capitals and a smal croys + above the south lyne, that
sheweth the 24 houres equals of the clokke; and, as I have said, 5 of
thise degrees maken a mile-wey, and 3 mile-wey maken an houre. And
every degree of this bordure conteneth 4 minutes, and every minut 60
secoundes; (E14) now have I told thee twye. And for the more
declaracioun, lo here the figure."
http://users.rcn.com/detroyes/astrolabe/astro02.html
The 21st century person simply recognises the unequal noon cycle
weighed against the annual cyclical orbit and the equalisation to 24
hours.The facility that keeps the 24 cycles ticking over using
natural noon as a benchmark also imposes a convenient 'constant' on
the axial cycle thereby allowing the correlation between clock time
and geographical seperation (longitude) at 4 minutes per 1 degree as
Chaucer knew back in the 13th century.
In some ways I sympathise with your inablility to untangle the
different strands but then I look at the irreducable complexity of the
'sidereal time' ustification based on an equable noon cycle which
would even have shocked Chaucer or people who lived a thousand years
before him.
Robert Clark
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:51:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
An astrolabe or sextant is scarcely more than a protractor with a
movable straight-edge along which you can sight a star or planet. A
little protractor grade school kids use might be 10 cm across and can
accurately measure angles to within a degree. To get an instrument
accurate to within arc minutes you could just make it 60 times larger,
or 6 meters across. This would be for the astronomers on land of
course.
Tycho Brahe in the 16th century worked before telescopes and so also
was a naked eye astronomer was able to make stellar measurements to
within 1/2 arc minute accuracy. He used a quadrant for his
observations the size of a room as shown in the image of a mural
quadrant here:
Tycho Brahe
2.4 Astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Astronomy
Bob Clark
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
All this is very entertaining but unfortunately none of you have risen
to the level of recognising the variations in the natural noon
cycle,the Equation of Time correction which equalises the variations
to a 24 hour cycle and keeps those cycles elapsing into each other
using natural noon as a benchmark.
The Equation of Time now makes a dramatic return to astronomy insofar
as it represents the rate of change of orbital oreitnation using
constant axial rotation and natural noon,the actual orbital component
can be visibly seen using the spectacular coincidence which gives
Uranus a unique rotational orientation and a central Equatorial ring -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/
The change in the orbital orientation of a location through an entire
360 degrees with respect to the central Sun can be seen clearly and
infered for the Earth as it orbits the central Sun,there is just no
ring to announce its existence but effectively the seperate axial
rotation of the Earth interacts with the way the Earth orbits the Sun
to produce the natural noon variations and the seasonal variations in
daylight/darkness -
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5DqY_q86xQ
I find it astonishing that the great learning institutions overlook
the fascinating orbital component and remain with the pseudo-dynamicv
of variable axial/equatorial inclination. but maybe I should not be
too surprised given the sheer hostility to the attempt to disprove the
'sidereal time' justification for axial and orbital motion.
Chris L Peterson
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An astrolabe or sextant is scarcely more than a protractor with a
>movable straight-edge along which you can sight a star or planet.
Again, you cannot compare the accuracy of these two instruments in
actual practice. A sextant is an intrinsically more precise instrument,
with its ability to bring the reference points into optical alignment
(eliminating the need to control orientation), and its usual use of
magnification.
> A
>little protractor grade school kids use might be 10 cm across and can
>accurately measure angles to within a degree.
Actually, getting an altitude within a degree with a 10cm protractor and
a plumb line is very, very difficult. I've been preparing a paper on
Egyptian stellar measurement practices, and with training, people can
approach one degree of accuracy sighting on stars with 30cm protractors
that are fixed to the ground.
> To get an instrument
>accurate to within arc minutes you could just make it 60 times larger,
>or 6 meters across. This would be for the astronomers on land of
>course.
Of course, you can produce very large, fixed, measurement instruments. I
thought we were talking here about astrolabes. I doubt there were
_portable_ instruments 2000 years ago capable of better than one degree
accuracy in normal usage. I also think there is little evidence that
astronomers 2000 years ago were able to produce measurements coming
remotely close in accuracy to what Brahe was capable of 1500 years
later.
Robert Clark
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
If you look at the instruments that Tycho used, you see they were
essentially room sized protractors, with which he was able to achieve
1/2 arc minute accuracy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Mauerquadrant.jpg
This was well within the capabilities of the ancient astronomers.
Bob Clark
Chris L Peterson
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you look at the instruments that Tycho used, you see they were
>essentially room sized protractors, with which he was able to achieve
>1/2 arc minute accuracy:
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Mauerquadrant.jpg
>
> This was well within the capabilities of the ancient astronomers.
In principle. But what evidence is there that measurements were ever
taken to this degree of accuracy before Brahe's time? AFAIK, no record
of such accurate stellar measurements exists (neither the data itself,
nor references to such). We can speculate all we want about what ancient
people might have been capable of, but evidence that they did these
things is sorely lacking.
Odysseus
Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
> <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you look at the instruments that Tycho used, you see they were
> >essentially room sized protractors, with which he was able to achieve
> >1/2 arc minute accuracy:
> >
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Mauerquadrant.jpg
> >
> > This was well within the capabilities of the ancient astronomers.
>
> In principle. But what evidence is there that measurements were ever
> taken to this degree of accuracy before Brahe's time? AFAIK, no record
> of such accurate stellar measurements exists (neither the data itself,
> nor references to such). We can speculate all we want about what ancient
> people might have been capable of, but evidence that they did these
> things is sorely lacking.
There's a solar observatory in China, built by Kublai Khan in the late
thirteenth century, that's essentially an enrmous sundial with a
thirty-metre-long stone trough onto which a horizontal gnomon cast a
shadow from a tower more than ten metres above. Not much use for other
kinds of observations, but it could measure the altitude of the Sun with
great precision.
--
Odysseus
Chris L Peterson
<odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>There's a solar observatory in China, built by Kublai Khan in the late
>thirteenth century, that's essentially an enrmous sundial with a
>thirty-metre-long stone trough onto which a horizontal gnomon cast a
>shadow from a tower more than ten metres above. Not much use for other
>kinds of observations, but it could measure the altitude of the Sun with
>great precision.
I'm not familiar with that one, although I know of other large sundials
that could be used to tell the time to within a few seconds. I don't
know of any dating back before than the one you mention, although it's
certainly feasible that they existed. Sundials are pretty old
technology!
oriel36
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
The fact that the equable 24 hour day is required to calculate the
orbital period of the Earth in fraction of days and then to collect
those fractions to the nearest equable day and subsequently introduce
a leap day is so old that nobody can say rightly when it came into
existence.Julius Caeser worked with the 1461 day calendar system
(365/366 days) but again,that requires knowledge of the equable 24
hour day first.
The only thing lacking is common sense and a severe expunging of those
erroneous principles from the late 17th century,the ones you adhere
to.Wax lyrical aboutt what my astronomical ancestors did and did not
know but they knew something you do not - the noon cycles are never 24
hours.
There probably is some reason that you lot dribble out references to
Brahe while ignoring the insights of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo
but it seems that you are conditioned to use Brahe as some sort of
empirical defence against Newton's catastrophic mutation of the
reasoniong of Copernicus based on retrogrades,much the same as
bringing up the irrelevent axial precession to obscure the fact that
you give the wrong value for axial rotation through 360 degrees and
the silly reasoning behind that value.
oriel36
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:24:53 GMT, Odysseus
>
> >There's a solar observatory in China, built by Kublai Khan in the late
> >thirteenth century, that's essentially an enrmous sundial with a
> >thirty-metre-long stone trough onto which a horizontal gnomon cast a
> >shadow from a tower more than ten metres above. Not much use for other
> >kinds of observations, but it could measure the altitude of the Sun with
> >great precision.
>
> I'm not familiar with that one, although I know of other large sundials
> that could be used to tell the time to within a few seconds. I don't
> know of any dating back before than the one you mention, although it's
> certainly feasible that they existed. Sundials are pretty old
> technology!
> _
Old they may be but they represent a tool to determine a basic
observation that no two noon cycles are alike.
Your crowd believe that the noon cycle is 24 hours exactly in order to
create a fictional 3 minute 56 second bridge to your 'sidereal time'
justification for axial and orbital motion -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
Alter any part of that representation and the whole 'sidereal time'
reasoning collapses but unfortunately there is some mental block to
doing that.I once thought it was just unfamiliarity or poor judgement
which made men do this but as time has gone on,there is something
rotten behind it all,something so distasteful about people knowingly
believing in false premises and false conclusions just because they
can,not for any good and genuine reasoning but just because it is not
convenient to an exotic empirical agenda.
Climate studies require an accurate reflection of the axial rotational
and orbital motions of the Earth with respect to each other and to
the central Sun and what is happening here is contrary to this.
Tim Smith
Don't some birds migrate long distances over water, following the same
route every year? They seem to have some way to navigate that doesn't
involve time keeping.
Sometimes I wonder if humans have overlooked some simple navigation
method that only requires a compass and the ability to detect polarized
light (and maybe to detect some light frequencies outside of human
visual range?).
> The ancients could have used water clocks to keep accurate time for
> night time observations. Water clocks became more inaccurate if you
> used a large reservoir of water to drain out at a prescribed rate
> since the water pressure became less as the amount of water decreased.
Suppose you have something floating in the reservoir, and the outgoing
water comes from a siphon whose intake is attached to the float and held
a fixed distance below it? Then, as the water level goes down, the
siphon intake will go down too, and the pressure would stay constant.
--
--Tim Smith