(Earth’s) time versus angle

[Capiert]

Some people
 “boldly” say:

 1 degree
 is 60 minutes

 (& DON’T think much about it).

But I find

 4 minutes
 is better

 & would have been more reasonable
 to make more sense,
 considering that shortcut used
 for ship navigation
 in the midevil ages.

An Earth’s (solar) day
 is a complete revolution (cycle, (e.g.) angle
 wrt the sun),
 in 24 hours (time).

(Note: Unfortunately (now)
 I find that definition
 of a day
 bound to both
 time
 & (cycle,
 e.g. 360°) angle.
E.g. Instead of only time.)

A cycle is 360° (angle).

 Wrt the sun

 the Earth’s
 angular_speed
 f=(angle/time)=1*[cycle]/(1*[solar_day]
 is the angle
 of 1*cycle=360°,
 per the time
 of 1*[solar_day]=24**60*[min/hr]*60*[sec/min]=86400*[sec].

So, (the proportionalities, are)

 f=360°/(86400*[sec])=0.0041667*[°/s], & inverted

 T=1/f=86400*[sec]/(360°)=240*[sec/°]. 

 240*[sec]*1*[min]/60*[sec]=4*[min]. 

 T=4*[min/°].

That means we (on Earth) need 4 minutes per degree (turned).
The Earth turns 1 degree (arc angle) in 4 minutes (time).

So the Earth will turn 0.25° in 1 minute.

1 minute is 60 seconds
1*[minutes]=60*[seconds].
Time is time,
 & that conversion relation has NOT changed.

The Earth turns 1/4 degree in 60 seconds
 f=0.25°/60*[sec]=0.0041667*[°/s]
 is still the same relation. 

That (4 “minutes” time) seems to be the only discrepancy
 with arc_angles'
 “minutes”;
 which (NOT to mention)
 also causes a discrepancy with arc_angle “seconds”
 due to the factor 60 (“times”).

Does it (=the wording) get any more bizzare?

I mean,
 do things right the 1^st time
 & then you WON’T have to correct them later.

Summarize:

The Earth’s
1 day rotation (angle), has 360° (angle).
24 hours has 86400*[seconds] (time).

It is obvious to conclude
 that 1*[minute]=60*[seconds] time
 of (the) Earth(’s) rotation,
 will sweep ¼ degree (arc of) angle.

Disclaimer:

Why then should there be 60*[minutes] (angle)
 in a degree (angle)
 when minutes were already defined for time?

Why confuse things?
A mistake is a mistake, please admit it;
 instead of (trying to) ice a poor cake (flop, better).

& then somebody came around
 & tried to turn everything upside down
 because they (whoever started the mess)
 could NOT do the math correctly (originally).

Continuity is demanded (=needed, for (fast, streamline) conversions);
 NOT a (complicated) half_hearted(=assed) attempt.

(Again,
 why then should there be 60*[minutes]
 in a degree (angle),
 (when) that (unit: minute) already exists (as a time definition)?
E.g. When minutes were already defined for time (only);
 & then somebody came around
 & tried to turn everything upside down
 (to fix it)
 because they (before (them)) could NOT do the math correctly (originally).
(It's built on a mess.)
I ask where are we in a (=this) modern world?
CAN’T we (at least) correct our ancestors mistakes?
Or do we have to continue & push the sludge thru?
But for what reason?
Mistakes ONLY slow_down progress=advancement.
Some things are NOT worth keeping.) 

Thus it seems a bit ridiculous
 to claim 1° is 60*[minutes] (of arc),
 since (it does NOT make sense (with time), &)
 at least then (&/or) there
 the correlation
 to (the Earth’s) time has been lost
 by the (fake) redefinition of the “minute”
 as angle
 instead of time (anymore).

I mean, had the Earth’s math (angle_speed) analogy
 been (correctly) extrapolated (finer);
 then less confusion had arisen
 for a (fake) distinction
 between minutes:
 in time; versus angle.

Time had remained time
 (instead of the need
 to distinguish time names (e.g. minutes & seconds)
 from angles);
 & a (natural, wrt Earthly) conversion
 (from time)
 to angle
 had been obviously performed
 from the (Earth’s) angle versus time

 f=360°/86400*[sec]=1/(240*[sec/°]);

 or the inverse proportionality
 as time versus angle
 which is ((like) Period, but in other units)
 T=1/f=86400*[sec]/(360°)=240*[sec/°].

I mean let’( u)s face it,
 it looks
 like an (obvious) error has happened
 by the over_simplified redefinition
 (of (arc_)angle into time “names”, e.g.
 such as minute=60_seconds);
 & its (errorful misnaming’s) cover_up
 (still) has NOT corrected
 that (time versus angle, math) mistake=ERROR!

I mean,
 according
 to them (old midevil naming):
 1*[hour] (angle)
 is suppose
 to be 360°/24*[hour]=15*[°/hr]
 =15*[degrees].

But who says that?
Who calls an hour(_angle)?
Everybody recognizes
 an hour
 as (ONLY) a unit of time.

Who calls a day, 360°?

Motivation:

I just wanted to point out that NONSENSE
 (with a complaint);
 & (note) the cover_up
 behind it;
 & propose an improvement.
E.g. Conservatives DON'T like changing anything
 without a reason.
Take it
 or leave it.
You can perpetuate the erroring
 (if you want,
 NOBODY is going to hinder brainless idiocy,
 are they?;
 or else clear it.
It’s YOUR choice.
We have a lot of (fishy) relics
 left over
 from the past.
NOT all are useful.

Cheers

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Some people
 “boldly” say:

 1 degree
 is 60 minutes

!

Moderator Note

In measurement, i.e. degrees of arc, it is defined this way. It’s not based on earth rotation.

I can’t tell if you’re overthinking the problem, or underthinking it, but ranting with an agenda is bad faith posting.

Science and math don’t defer to your whims. Get over it.