Hello David, You wrote:
>Question: Under these principles which of the two >definitions for EOT makes the most sense? I have >expressed the opinion that the first (or older) >definition is consistent with the above principles. >Now however I wonder if I haven't missed something? >Regards, David Astronomy is a ìnaturalî science. As such, it is based upon observations of the behavior of the natural world, which human minds seek to interpret. Such interpretations are secondary, or derivative, (theorizations) that summarize the observations for the convenience of the mind. Mean Time is such a convenient construct, in which an imaginary sun is considered to move uniformly about the earth in the plane of the Equator. No such phenomenon can be observed, it is simply a fictional contrivance. Scientists (here astronomers) like to keep this in mind, so they prefer to ìadjustî the observed, or local apparent time, to obtain the artificial time. Hence, in their view,the second definition makes the most sense. It is this priority of observation over interpretation that you ìmissedî in forming your above opinion. Sciagraphically, Bill
