AnAtheist:
You don’t get that, do you?
There is a difference between the revolution relative to the sun’s position and relative to a distant star’s position, because the Earth is revolving around the sun too, while the sun’s position remains fixed towards that star. Fixed at least over the periods of time we talk about. A sidereal day is due to TWO OVERLAID revolutions.
Build some aiming device (e.g. telescope with crosshairs), aim it at a distant star, then take a watch and MEASURE the time it takes for that star to reappear again in the crosshairs. Perhaps then you will stop uttering that nonsense.
Or go back to school, 8th grade or something, and relearn some basic geometry.
That why you are an empirical dummy,you can’t reason from the fact that a watch/clock was developed from the principle of the 24 hour day using the Sun and only the Sun as a reference for the axial rotation of the Earth .Axial rotation as an independent motion has one and only one correct value and certainly it does not need the word ‘relative to’ attached to the rotation.Newton got it wrong and as for the numbskulls in the early 20th century well…
The really intricate part is recognising that the pre-Copernican ‘average’ 24 hour day was derived from the Equation of Time correction using the noon reference which naturally registers a natural inequality with each rotation of the Earth on its axis,within Copernican heliocentrisnm that average day translates into constant axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours in total.
What do you think,that they found a clock underneath a rock and then timed the return of a star to the same position as representing constant axial rotation of the Earth as an independent motion !. Maybe another Catholic can explain to you why it is not a good idea to link the Earth’s rotation directly to the return of a star to the same position but that is exactly what Flamsteed did and Newton built on it.
You guys went crazy with the word ‘relative’ ,again the Earth’s axial rotation is a single and independent motion.The value is 24 hours exactly or 15 degrees per hour or 4 min per degree of rotation.
Did you not like Albert’s reason for curving the universe,he thought it was a shame light was going to waste,how dumb can you get!!!.It must have ruined his day when galactic structure was discovered in the mid 1920’s for goodness me,did he love his fixed stars just like Isaac.
" This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space.
1"
bartleby.com/173/30.html
Btw,Newton ideas on the ‘fixed stars’ are fairly explicit but it is bad enough dealing with Newtonian spindoctoring to descend into absurd relativistic sopindoctoring.
“Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I.”[Principia]
If you ever find out whether Isaac or Albert was a bigger liar I suggest you take a look at these magnificent stellar islands which neither of that pair knew about.Albert was interested in homocentricity and his statement above reflects it .
rcopticalsystems.com/gallery/m100.jpg
Go ahead and read Einstein,that excerpt is just about right for his era before they discovered galaxies,you can see him lie about Newton and deny galactic structure at the same time.
