Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 What the title says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 how did you arrive at this conclusion? did you use a particular algorithm? what can you use it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 how did you arrive at this conclusion? did you use a particular algorithm? what can you use it for? I used some maths The Earth's spin is 1,038 miles per hour An hour is 3600 so 1038/3600 = 2.888 2.8888 x 86,400 = 249120 miles Earth,s circumference = 24,859.82 miles it is 2.88833333 so slightly off. I used some maths The Earth's spin is 1,038 miles per hour An hour is 3600 so 1038/3600 = 2.888 2.8888 x 86,400 = 249120 miles Earth,s circumference = 24,859.82 miles it is 2.88833333 so slightly off. I get the earth's circumference as 24912 miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) so, by your math, a stationary man standing in front of the earth would watch 2.888 miles go by each second. Edited April 3, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 so, by your math, a stationary man standing in front of the earth would watch 2.888 miles go by each second. I should of used a sidereal day and would have got the other result. In answer to your question , yes if the observer was watching a fixed point. He would see 2.888 miles pass using a solar day timing, and on a sidereal timing. 2.883333m x 86164s = 24860 miles He only see's 2.88 mile passing by of the earth, he does not move, you can work out the other planets and they should fit also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Actually, 1 second is equal to 186,282 miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 another one... curious. how did you arrive at this conclusion? did you use a particular algorithm? what can you use it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 another one... curious. I do apologise, it has sort of left me again for a minute. I can not think the maths now, it came to me then went, I will regroup and get my head around the maths again, My apologies, I will be back and explain where my conclusion came from, I have lost my own idea I had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 i understand. happens to me all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) Actually, 1 second is equal to 186,282 miles. The speed of light ''C'' came later than the original definition of a second. The origin of the second is the issue, a solar year, and now seemingly the second is associated with distance, although time still moves in a stationary position. Mars spin velocity, 539.487 mph mars equator circumference 13,300 miles 13,300/539.487= 24.64 24.64x3600=88704 would that be the correct amount of seconds in a Martian day? I get Mars as 0.14 m/s 13292.95968 That gives this circumference I fiqure solar day? Edited April 3, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 so what are you planning to do with this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 so what are you planning to do with this idea? I have no idea, just thought I would share it, and maybe create a universal time, using some other factors. Not sure to be honest I am just a thoughtful mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 never stop asking questions is my thought. a universal time would be a great contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 never stop asking questions is my thought. a universal time would be a great contribution. any one know at what distance and velocity we are seeing the redshift objects moving away in our expanding universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 any one know at what distance and velocity we are seeing the redshift objects moving away in our expanding universe? A minimum of 200 million lys, and velocity increases with distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 A minimum of 200 million lys, and velocity increases with distance. That rules out that out then we can not reverse the distance to a central point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I used some maths The Earth's spin is 1,038 miles per hour Only at the equator. I estimate it is about half that where I live. And zero at the North Pole. Is that significant? I'm not sure, because I don't know what you think the significance of 2.88 miles per second is. The origin of the second is the issue, a solar year, and now seemingly the second is associated with distance, although time still moves in a stationary position. The second has nothing to do with distance. It used to be defined in terms of the length of a day. But is no longer. 24.64x3600=88704 would that be the correct amount of seconds in a Martian day? The Mars day is about 1 hour 40 minutes or 88,775.24409 seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) he is clearly having fun with numbers. you have to start somewhere. discovery is a better tool than failure. Edited April 4, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) The second has nothing to do with distance. It used to be defined in terms of the length of a day. But is no longer. Originally a solar day was based on one rotation of the Earth compared to the Sun. From point A , 360 degrees, which its origin, could of been measured as a unit of Distance. 24 hours divided into seconds, divided by circumference of the Earth, which gives 2.88333 mile per second. 1 second of clock time , equal to the distance of 2.888333 mile travelled in rotation. Because of fluctuations in the rotation speed, it was decided to use the atomic clock and the caesium 133 etc. However, after study, I have found that the atomic clocks second, was chosen/invented, and has close as possible to an original clock second. So technically science just changed the colour . The second on an atomic clock is the same has a second on any clock. So 2.883333 mile is still one second, dictated my man. ''The Mars day is about 1 hour 40 minutes or 88,775.24409 seconds'' solar or sidereal? ''Only at the equator. I estimate it is about half that where I live. And zero at the North Pole. Is that significant? I'm not sure, because I don't know what you think the significance of 2.88 miles per second is.'' Well, you need zero, you can not have time measured by distance, and time and distance setting the size of the other planets by the look of it. Edited April 4, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now