But then, so did the Russians: сутки.
The Greek word, as borrowed by English, is nychthemeron, a day specifically in
the sense of 24 hours.
As opposed to counting only the sunny hours, as sundials do.
Of course, the Greek word itself looks like this: νυχθήμερον.
And, as well, the English word is an esoteric technical term, known by not
one in a thousand, whereas "sutki" is a word of the ordinary common Russian
language.

John Savard

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 10:11:27 PM UTC-8, Quadibloc wrote:
> But then, so did the Russians: сутки.
> The Greek word, as borrowed by English, is nychthemeron, a day specifically in
> the sense of 24 hours.
> As opposed to counting only the sunny hours, as sundials do.
> Of course, the Greek word itself looks like this: νυχθήμερον.
> And, as well, the English word is an esoteric technical term, known by not
> one in a thousand, whereas "sutki" is a word of the ordinary common Russian
> language.
>
> John Savard

How about in Navajo?

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 11:11:27 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> But then, so did the Russians: сутки.
> The Greek word, as borrowed by English, is nychthemeron, a day specifically in
> the sense of 24 hours.
> As opposed to counting only the sunny hours, as sundials do.
> Of course, the Greek word itself looks like this: νυχθήμερον.
> And, as well, the English word is an esoteric technical term, known by not
> one in a thousand, whereas "sutki" is a word of the ordinary common Russian
> language.

And in Yiddish, the word is:

מֵעֵת לְעֵת

or "mesles", while in German, the word is Etmal.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 1:57:20 AM UTC-8, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 11:11:27 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > But then, so did the Russians: сутки.
> > The Greek word, as borrowed by English, is nychthemeron, a day specifically in
> > the sense of 24 hours.
> > As opposed to counting only the sunny hours, as sundials do.
> > Of course, the Greek word itself looks like this: νυχθήμερον.
> > And, as well, the English word is an esoteric technical term, known by not
> > one in a thousand, whereas "sutki" is a word of the ordinary common Russian
> > language.
> And in Yiddish, the word is:
>
> מֵעֵת לְעֵת
>
> or "mesles", while in German, the word is Etmal.
>
> John Savard

In Chines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pTLxyazE7o

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 6:11:27 AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> But then, so did the Russians: сутки.
> The Greek word, as borrowed by English, is nychthemeron, a day specifically in
> the sense of 24 hours.
> As opposed to counting only the sunny hours, as sundials do.
> Of course, the Greek word itself looks like this: νυχθήμερον.
> And, as well, the English word is an esoteric technical term, known by not
> one in a thousand, whereas "sutki" is a word of the ordinary common Russian
> language.
>
> John Savard

My goodness, how did things come to this? In this respect, it becomes difficult for me to use the words of Copernicus himself knowing all too well what happens to those perspectives afterwards in the minds of those who are less considerate-

" The first motion, named ’nychthemeron’ by the Greeks, as I said, is the rotation which is the characteristic of a
day plus a night. This turns around the earth’s axis from west to east, just as the universe is deemed to be carried in
the opposite direction. It describes the equator, which some people call the ”circle of equal days”, in imitation of the
designation used by the Greeks, whose term for it is ’isemerinos’ " Copernicus

The intrusion of those who link the rotation to the average 24 hour day by way of the circumpolar return of a star to the same location rather than link rotation to the single sunrise/noon/sunset cycle via the central Sun ("day plus night" as Copernicus used it) remains a self-inflicted tragedy for our society although they are not aware of it and only those genuinely interested in solar system research would.

There is no point in arguing against people who are all too delighted to bring in unwanted observations because their system demands it yet even this reflects on the standard of consideration rather than the people themselves.. As far as I can tell, this is the way it has always been unfortunately.

On 22/01/22 11:17 AM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 6:11:27 AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> But then, so did the Russians: сутки.
>> The Greek word, as borrowed by English, is nychthemeron, a day specifically in
>> the sense of 24 hours.
>> As opposed to counting only the sunny hours, as sundials do.
>> Of course, the Greek word itself looks like this: νυχθήμερον.
>> And, as well, the English word is an esoteric technical term, known by not
>> one in a thousand, whereas "sutki" is a word of the ordinary common Russian
>> language.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>
> My goodness, how did things come to this?

Does the English language really not have a word for it? A
bit surprising (we in Dutch call it 'etmaal', almost the same
as it is in German, and a pretty normal word to use).

Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
a solar day?

--
Jos

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 1:40:40 PM UTC-7, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> Does the English language really not have a word for it? A
> bit surprising (we in Dutch call it 'etmaal', almost the same
> as it is in German, and a pretty normal word to use).

Yes, indeed. One has to say "24 hours" or "a day and a night" in English if
it is necessary to make it unambiguous - although usually in context, it is
clear enough which meaning of the word 'day' is intended.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> a solar day?

Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.

Knock yourself out, but you will get nowhere.

Right, Gerald?

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> > Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> > a solar day?

> Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.

It is true that the poster Oriel36 objects to... certain uses of the sidereal day.

Essentially, he objects to the claim that the Earth rotates on its axis in one "sidereal day" of
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, as opposed to one solar day of 24 hours.

Consistently, he also objects to the claim that the Moon rotates on its axis - at all.

Thus, he essentially believes that the rotational period of a body should only be
judged relative to its relation to its primary - as opposed to being judged relative
to the frame of motion defined by the fixed stars.

This, of course, is seriously in error. The Equation of Time is the consequence of
the Earth rotating on its axis at a _uniform_ pace of one rotation in 23 hours, 56
minutes and 4 seconds relative to the fixed stars, while its orbit around the Sun
is elliptical, and not in the plane of the Earth's equator... which leads to the departure
of the Sun's apparent motion as seen from the Earth from a uniform pace of one
circuit every 24 hours as expressed in the Equation of Time.

(Of course, the Earth's rotation relative to the fixed stars isn't perfectly uniform -
seasonal changes in the prevailing winds, for example, lead to tiny changes, but
that is orders of magnitude smaller.)

And, similarly, the Moon's librations are due to its rotation relative to the fixed
stars being constant, so that its orbit being inclined and elliptical means that the
Moon wiggles a little instead of staring straight at the Earth.

Recognizing that the laws of motion (as found by Newton) make it simplest to
judge rotation from the frame of the fixed stars simplifies calculating things
like the Equation of Time enormously - and so Oriel36 claims Newton was a
fraud, and decries even the very notion that the planets' motions are ruled by
gravity. Which makes it hard to explain the discovery of Neptune.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:06:25 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
> > > Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> > > a solar day?
>
> > Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.

> It is true that the poster Oriel36 objects to... certain uses of the sidereal day.

But he _does_ acknowledge that it exists (even if the name "sidereal day" is
not a good one, and in this, I'm not inclined to dispute his claim) - and that
it has a legitimate use as a "timekeeping convenience", i.e. it's entirely all
right with him for the clock drive on a telescope to have the period of a sidereal
day to keep it pointed at the same stars.

It's just illegitimate with him to think that this time period is a better time for the
Earth's rotation than the good old _day_ day of 24 hours.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:06:25 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> >
> > > > Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> > > > a solar day?
> >
> > > Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.
>
> > It is true that the poster Oriel36 objects to... certain uses of the sidereal day.
> But he _does_ acknowledge that it exists (even if the name "sidereal day" is
> not a good one, and in this, I'm not inclined to dispute his claim) - and that
> it has a legitimate use as a "timekeeping convenience", i.e. it's entirely all
> right with him for the clock drive on a telescope to have the period of a sidereal
> day to keep it pointed at the same stars.
>
> It's just illegitimate with him to think that this time period is a better time for the
> Earth's rotation than the good old _day_ day of 24 hours.

Or, to put it another way...

He acknowledges that the "sidereal day", as it has its uses as a "timekeeping
convenience", is _a_ real thing.

But it is not, according to him, the Earth's fundamental period of intrinsic rotation;
thus, it is not _the_ real thing - so for him, it can never be the pause that refreshes.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:15:00 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:06:25 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> > > > > Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> > > > > a solar day?

> > > > Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.

> > It is true that the poster Oriel36 objects to... certain uses of the sidereal day.
> > But he _does_ acknowledge that it exists (even if the name "sidereal day" is
> > not a good one, and in this, I'm not inclined to dispute his claim) - and that
> > it has a legitimate use as a "timekeeping convenience", i.e. it's entirely all
> > right with him for the clock drive on a telescope to have the period of a sidereal
> > day to keep it pointed at the same stars.

> > It's just illegitimate with him to think that this time period is a better time for the
> > Earth's rotation than the good old _day_ day of 24 hours.

> Or, to put it another way...

> He acknowledges that the "sidereal day", as it has its uses as a "timekeeping
> convenience", is _a_ real thing.
>
> But it is not, according to him, the Earth's fundamental period of intrinsic rotation;
> thus, it is not _the_ real thing - so for him, it can never be the pause that refreshes.

And how could I possibly have failed to include the appropriate video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

John Savard

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 4:13:02 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
> > Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> > a solar day?
> Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.
>
> Knock yourself out, but you will get nowhere.
>
> Right, Gerald?

Thankfully, you are an honest person and so it is possible to have a discussion with you unlike others who are too flighty and altogether unreliable.

What you call the 'sidereal day' is entirely an extension of human timekeeping based not only on the average 24 hour day but also the 365/366 day calendar system. Its purpose is to make times of astronomical events more accurately within the dates of the calendar system (clockwork solar system) yet, as the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun 365 days for three years and 366 times for one year, its use is for predictions only.

" The first motion, named ’nychthemeron’ by the Greeks, as I said, is the rotation which is the characteristic of a
day plus a night. " Copernicus

The symmetry between sunrise and noon and noon and sunset with noon as an anchor incorporates the "day plus night" for every rotation. All cause and effect comes from this observation, such as temperature rises and falls, biological rhythms and so on. It does not include the annual change in position of the stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth and this is where the valuable information gets lost considering that satellites free of the Earth's rotation identify this demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion alone with the Sun as a fixed/central reference-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

I have to trust you that you have already got this observation and its importance without having to repeat it further. I am content to identify solar system structure as the planets or events come and go within range of the camera with their own particular characteristics. It constitutes a new form of solar system research just as the Western world wants to escape into virtual reality and metaverses which limit perception to software programmers.

Who knows Paul, even you may feel some sadness as younger society opts for imaginary worlds rather than the real substance which genuine perceptive qualities give.

On 22/01/23 6:10 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:06:25 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>
>>>> Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
>>>> a solar day?
>>
>>> Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect... but there you have it.
>
>> It is true that the poster Oriel36 objects to... certain uses of the sidereal day.
>
> But he _does_ acknowledge that it exists (even if the name "sidereal day" is
> not a good one, and in this, I'm not inclined to dispute his claim) -

OK, "galactic day" would be better, and then "cosmological day"
could correct again for the galactic rotation (albeit a small
correction, we always should strive for astronomical precision!)

--
Jos

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 11:24:28 AM UTC, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 22/01/23 6:10 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:06:25 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 12:40:40 PM UTC-8, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Or is this about the difference between a siderial day and
> >>>> a solar day?
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately, Gerald Kelleher does not acknowledge that a sidereal day is a real thing. In this regard, of course, he is completely incorrect.... but there you have it.
> >
> >> It is true that the poster Oriel36 objects to... certain uses of the sidereal day.
> >
> > But he _does_ acknowledge that it exists (even if the name "sidereal day" is
> > not a good one, and in this, I'm not inclined to dispute his claim) -
> OK, "galactic day" would be better, and then "cosmological day"
> could correct again for the galactic rotation (albeit a small
> correction, we always should strive for astronomical precision!)
>
> --
> Jos

You are talking about timekeeping precision and that does not equate to interpreting planetary motions, solar system motions or any greater motions correctly. The attempt to equate a rotating celestial sphere of stars with daily rotation directly represents a misuse of timekeeping although it forms the basis of the clockwork solar system.

Not to labour the point beyond what is necessary, the nychthemeron which refers day plus night to one rotation does not contain any information about the change in position of the stars as it refers to the motion of the Earth to the central/stationary Sun alone. Introducing an unnecessary and counterproductive observation in the daily change in position of the stars allied with the calendar framework and then proposing it as a true reflection of daily rotation represents a misadventure with timekeeping precision rather than astronomical accuracy.

Your countryman Huygens, was one of the first people to refer clocks to natural noon, the symmetry between sunrise/noon and noon/sunset and so on-

https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:24:38 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> And how could I possibly have failed to include the appropriate video link:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

And what is the real thing, that the world wants to find?

Surely... that would be the answer...
to the great question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

On the other hand, some people quipped that Coca-Cola...
only was the "real thing" at its very inception, before a
certain ingredient was removed from it as a result of a
change in the laws.

This inspired me to look up a Wikipedia article... from which
I found that the cocaine molecule contains... 43 atoms.

Whew! Missed it by _that_ much!

I'd like to teach the world to cal-
culate celestial me-
chanics...

Just doesn't fit the metre well at all.

John Savard