Capiert Posted November 26, 2023 Posted November 26, 2023 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 1st 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 Posted November 26, 2023 Posted November 26, 2023 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. 1
Recommended Posts