Time : Expansion of The Universe

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

You are not even shocked at the imbalance of 366 rotations in 365 days despite the fact that daily experience of rotation and its effects tell you that the Earth turns once in a day and stays that way.

The history of why you ended up believing you can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and that the oldest galaxies are the most distant is founded on a right ascension mistake by John Flamsteed where it snowballed through Isaac's agenda.

The idea that humans can control the planet's temperature is one of the most visible signs of dysfunction that arises from the same 'scientific method' which created 'big bang' and when a society ends up believing something as cruel as human temperature control,I would say the world has an urgent problem,not with terrestrial sciences but the cult that tries to promote it.

Gkell you have read my post, yet you again ignore the questions I asked in it.

The only explaination for this is that you know the answers to these questions and that by giving them honestly you will undermine your frankly stupid position. Hence you are acting dishonestly by ignoring them completely.

You know that light has a finite speed and that this solves the issue you have and are bleating on about. But you don't care about the facts so you are going to pretend that your question has not been answered.

So have you ever wondered why you have to act so dishonestly to support your nonsense?

gkell3

Rubecula wrote: »

Fact: One day is equal to one rotation of the earth. Measure it in minutes or even seconds if you wish but one rotation equals one day. We use 24 hours as measurement as it is close enough for most folks.

Fact 2 : the Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days

Fact 3 : the Earth does not turn 1465 times in 1461 days as big bangers believe.

These are the things that will snap you out of your cult and return you to a functioning state,the simple things based on common sense will bring you back from meaningless junk of 'expanding space'.

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

Fact 2 : the Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days

Fact 3 : the Earth does not turn 1465 times in 1461 days as big bangers believe.

These are the things that will snap you out of your cult and return you to a functioning state,the simple things based on common sense will bring you back from meaningless junk of 'expanding space'.

I think I just realised where you are messing up, though I am confident this has been explained to you before and you just ignored it.

The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days.
The Earth goes around the Sun four times in 1462 days.

I have no idea were you're getting the idea that "big bangers" (ie people who know what they're talking about) think this 1465 times in 1461 days stuff.

Cú Giobach

gkell3 wrote: »

A guy who can believe contradictory premises simultaneously will never be lonely or anything else.

You should try going to Church,it allows for individuality yet also has a community setting whereas the empirical cult breeds a type of slavery that is really unhealthy,more like a cult of consensual confusion where you only have to pretend you know what you are talking about to be a member.It certainly doesn't tolerate individuality hence the consensual thumbsucking so far but each to his own.

This is a science forum, not an evangelical meeting.

I don't see my isolation as anything,I get on with the business of astronomy which is an individual pursuit with many facets and many talents,some are like tourists such as the magnification squad while others are explorers and go it alone.Sure it can get lonely but the view of astronomy from its peaks has a satisfaction to it that few others things could give yet it requires talent, effort or both to scale those peaks.

If you need people to talk to this isn't really the best place for it, may I suggest you post on a religious site.
You won't make any converts here.

gkell3

King Mob wrote: »

You know that light has a finite speed and that this solves the issue you have and are bleating on about. But you don't care about the facts so you are going to pretend that your question has not been answered.

/QUOTE]

To understand what Roemer did means you have to comprehend planetary orbital comparisons as their distances expand and contract in their respective circuits,that is what accounts for finite light speed.Without the proper resolution for retrogrades there isn't the remotest chance you can comprehend what Roemer's insight represents and I don't particularly care if I am the only person to spot that disaster of Newton,it shows no aility or talent to handle Kepler's let alone Roemer's insight -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

It is not my fault the talentless can't interpret the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in that time lapse footage and spotting the Newton's junk straight away but then again,you can't comprehend the observations and conclusions of Roemer using his observations of Jupiter from a moving Earth.

An expert mountaineer is familiar with all the requirements to make it up a peak while none of you have shown that ability.

gkell3

King Mob wrote: »

You know that light has a finite speed and that this solves the issue you have and are bleating on about. But you don't care about the facts so you are going to pretend that your question has not been answered.

To understand what Roemer did means you have to comprehend planetary orbital comparisons as their distances expand and contract in their respective circuits,that is what accounts for finite light speed.Without the proper resolution for retrogrades there isn't the remotest chance you can comprehend what Roemer's insight represents and I don't particularly care if I am the only person to spot that disaster of Newton,it shows no aility or talent to handle Kepler's let alone Roemer's insight -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

It is not my fault the talentless can't interpret the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in that time lapse footage and spotting the Newton's junk straight away but then again,you can't comprehend the observations and conclusions of Roemer using his observations of Jupiter from a moving Earth.

An expert mountaineer is familiar with all the requirements to make it up a peak while none of you have shown that ability.

Cú Giobach

King Mob wrote: »

I think I just realised where you are messing up, though I am confident this has been explained to you before and you just ignored it.

The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days.
The Earth goes around the Sun four times in 1462 days.

I have no idea were you're getting the idea that "big bangers" (ie people who know what they're talking about) think this 1465 times in 1461 days stuff.

The Earth actually turns 366.25 times a year and 367.25 in a leap year.
It has to turn 1 deg extra per solar day for a point to return to the noon position due to the Earth's movement in its orbit relative to the Sun. The actual rotation of the planet can be seen by the movements of the stars, 1465 rotations in 4 years. Gkell wont accept this.

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

To understand what Roemer did means you have to comprehend planetary orbital comparisons as their distances expand and contract in their respective circuits,that is what accounts for finite light speed.Without the proper resolution for retrogrades there isn't the remotest chance you can comprehend what Roemer's insight represents and I don't particularly care if I am the only person to spot that disaster of Newton,it shows no aility or talent to handle Kepler's let alone Roemer's insight -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

It is not my fault the talentless can't interpret the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in that time lapse footage and spotting the Newton's junk straight away but then again,you can't comprehend the observations and conclusions of Roemer using his observations of Jupiter from a moving Earth.

An expert mountaineer is familiar with all the requirements to make it up a peak while none of you have shown that ability.

Again none of this addresses anything in the post I made. In fact it just seems to be you repeating a lot of you nonsenical waffle from before.

And since you don't seem capable of actually engaging in a discussion, could you perhaps at least explain clearly what mistake Newton made specifically?

King Mob

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The Earth actually turns 366.25 times a year and 367.25 in a leap year.
It has to turn 1 deg extra per solar day for a point to return to the noon position due to the Earth's movement in its orbit relative to the Sun. The actual rotation of the planet can be seen by the movements of the stars, 1465 rotations in 4 years. Gkell wont accept this.

So I was right in principle, he just doesn't grasp that years don't fit into days perfectly?

gkell3

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you need people to talk to this isn't really the best place for it, may I suggest you post on a religious site.
You won't make any converts here.

All that has happened here is the discovery that the 'big bang' premise,when it is split in two halves where the oldest galaxies being the most distant is one side of the premise and an evolutionary timeline seen directly is on the other side creates an unpalatable conclusion that none of you can bear to look at because it tells you what is inside yourselves and no offence,that is far removed from astronomy and its common sense insights.

So now you know where the idea that humans can control the planet's temperature comes from,the same dour minds that give the world 'big bang'.You are not traitors to humanity,you are too much enmeshed in a cult to be that but it does expose that there is no real authority in existence to get humanity as far removed from these things as quickly as possible.Maybe the Church will but I have seen nothing so far.

Cú Giobach

King Mob wrote: »

So I was right in principle, he just doesn't grasp that years don't fit into days perfectly?

Yea.
For some unexplained reason he hates it.

gkell3

King Mob wrote: »

Again none of this addresses anything in the post I made. In fact it just seems to be you repeating a lot of you nonsenical waffle from before.

And since you don't seem capable of actually engaging in a discussion, could you perhaps at least explain clearly what mistake Newton made specifically?

Here is the direct motion of Mars and the Earth around the Sun with the Earth traveling faster -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

Any questions ?.

Cú Giobach

gkell3 wrote: »

Any questions ?.

Ha ha ha!!!!! :D:D:D

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

Here is the direct motion of Mars and the Earth around the Sun with the Earth traveling faster -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

Any questions ?.

Yes, several all of which you've been ignoring cause you can't answer them honestly.
If you'd like to try them for a change, just simple yes or noes would be fine, or a simple fgiure. No need to write long paragraphs or find quotes that have nothing to do with the post.

Does light have a finite speed?
If so, what is it?
Do you believe that the Earth does in fact go around the sun?

And a new one: what exactly does that picture prove for your position?

Duggys Housemate

This is a train wreck.

The earth rotates around its own axis in 1 day but the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun is not an exact multiple of those days. Humans pretend it is, but have to correct the calendar ( which is a human invention) with leap days.

funny enough both the Julian calendar and the big bang theory are the work of Catholic scientists.

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

I don't see what you are saying that Newton got wrong? He seems to be describing a sun centred solar system. Please tell me you aren't disputing this?

gkell3

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This is a train wreck.

The earth rotates around its own axis in 1 day but the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun is not an exact multiple of those days. Humans pretend it is, but have to correct the calendar ( which is a human invention) with leap days.

funny enough both the Julian calendar and the big bang theory are the work of Catholic scientists.

None of you know your history,the 1461 day calendar system is ancient and the correction is based on the fact that the star Sirius does not emerge from behind the glare of the Sun after 4 consecutive periods of 365 days but requires an extra day which we now know as Feb 29th -

" on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis by
one day in the course of 4 years.. therefore it shall be, that the
year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as
feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day
after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year,
whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the
order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which
are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are
now corrected and improved.." Canopus Decree

The Lat/Long system is based on 1461 natural noon cycles designated by AM/PM which is then equalized to 24 hour AM/PM thereby giving us the steady progression of 24 hour days in tandem with daily rotation or what amounts to the same thing,the Earth turns once a day.As daily and orbital motions are seperate,the steady progression of 24 hour days substitutes for steady rotation,in other words there is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees.The way the calendar system works is that it allows the 1/4 rotation's worth of orbital motion to drift through March 1st in non leap years where it is picked up by a full rotation after 4 years on Feb 29th as another day and another rotation of the Earth.It may be tricky but it is common sense.

Surely there is someone who has enough common sense to start with the conclusion that the Earth turns once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days.The train wreck of Ra/Dec which tries to introduce a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance can be dealt with as a separate issue.

Duggys Housemate

I don't think anyone is denying that there are 1461 days in 1461 days, you seemed to bring that straw man theory into the argument yourself, a double straw man because it has nothing to do with the big bang.

Cú Giobach

gkell3 wrote: »

As daily and orbital motions are seperate

The situation with Uranus shows this to be wrong. Something flipped the planet over onto its side and it didn't suddenly acquire a rotation at 90 degs to the orbital plane, nor does it have a retrograde rotation at this angle. If the Earth somehow left orbit or turned on its side, it would continue rotating at 366.25 rpy, it would need an input of energy to actually change this.
If our calenders were set to our actual rotation then you might have a point raising the issue, since they aren't what is your problem?

,the steady progression of 24 hour days substitutes for steady rotation,in other words there is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees.

Only if you ignore the rest of the Universe. Which for you would be in keeping with your style.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I don't think anyone is denying that there are 1461 days in 1461 days, you seemed to bring that straw man theory into the argument yourself, a double straw man because it has nothing to do with the big bang.

He can't accept there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days, because we move relative to the object we count days by (the Sun) but not relative to how we count actual rotations (the stars) they don't match, this is too much for his brain to handle.

gkell3

King Mob wrote: »

And a new one: what exactly does that picture prove for your position?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

That is not one picture,that is a sequence of images showing the Earth and Mars moving directly around the Sun with the Earth going faster.If you get that far you will immediately know why Newton's view is useless,false and misleading -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

It is a talent thing,you are on a moving Earth that is turning daily and separately orbiting the Sun,it is how genuine astronomers make sense of observations including the anomalous motion of Io as the Earth and Jupiter move closer and further apart in their orbital circuits.

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

That is not one picture,that is a sequence of images showing the Earth and Mars moving directly around the Sun with the Earth going faster.If you get that far you will immediately know why Newton's view is useless,false and misleading -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

It is a talent thing,you are on a moving Earth that is turning daily and separately orbiting the Sun,it is how genuine astronomers make sense of observations including the anomalous motion of Io as the Earth and Jupiter move closer and further apart in their orbital circuits.

I still fail to see how exactly this makes Newton wrong? He talks about the "wandering" movements of planets. This is what the picture shows?

Please explain exactly how he is wrong?

AugustusMinimus

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This is a train wreck.

The earth rotates around its own axis in 1 day but the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun is not an exact multiple of those days.

This is not wholly correct.

It takes roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes for the earth to rotate once around it's own axis.

However, the earth's movement around the sun accounts for the 4 minute difference between how long it takes to rotate and the length of a day.

4 minutes * 365 days = 1 day which is what the earth would experience if it wasn't revolving.

gkell3

Cú Giobach wrote: »

He can't accept there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days, because we move relative to the object we count days by (the Sun) but not relative to how we count actual rotations (the stars) they don't match, this is too much for his brain to handle.

"Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h.[17] This is obtained by dividing Earth's equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space," Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rotation

You have imaginations that can stomach junk like this instead of the common sense experience that the Earth turns once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days.

That is the only standard I accept as a point of departure for any discussion for all I have done so far is expose just how truly bad the situation is as the same people who can't tell what causes day to turn to night are wasting everyone's time and money pursuing a belief that humans can control the planet's temperature.

gkell3

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

This is not wholly correct.

It takes roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes for the earth to rotate once around it's own axis.

However, the earth's movement around the sun accounts for the 4 minute difference between how long it takes to rotate and the length of a day.

4 minutes * 365 days = 1 day which is what the earth would experience if it wasn't revolving.

There is nobody here with enough sense to start by looking out their window and seeing daylight turn to darkness,wake up tomorrow and know the Earth will rotate and do the same thing once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days.They work everything back from there including the Ra/Dec train wreck you follow.

"Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h.[17] This is obtained by dividing Earth's equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space," Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rotation

Not only common sense but common sense geography resolves the issue but common sense has yet to make an appearance here.Call me whatever you want for promoting that the Earth turns once in a day and stays that way but that is the way it is.Prolonged contact with cult mentalities is draining but if one person snaps out it would be worth it.

AugustusMinimus

gkell3 wrote: »

"Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h.[17] This is obtained by dividing Earth's equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space," Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rotation

You have imaginations that can stomach junk like this instead of the common sense experience that the Earth turns once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days.

That is the only standard I accept as a point of departure for any discussion for all I have done so far is expose just how truly bad the situation is as the same people who can't tell what causes day to turn to night are wasting everyone's time and money pursuing a belief that humans can control the planet's temperature.

From the same link

"Both the stellar day and the sidereal day are shorter than the mean solar day by about 3 minutes 56 seconds."

For God sake read the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

That is not one picture,that is a sequence of images showing the Earth and Mars moving directly around the Sun with the Earth going faster.If you get that far you will immediately know why Newton's view is useless,false and misleading -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

It is a talent thing,you are on a moving Earth that is turning daily and separately orbiting the Sun,it is how genuine astronomers make sense of observations including the anomalous motion of Io as the Earth and Jupiter move closer and further apart in their orbital circuits.

None of that is an answer to any of my questions once again.

Secondly, what you did write does not make a lick of sense in any way.
First, Earth overtaking Mars does not show how Newton was wrong. In fact it was both consistant with his theories of gravity and helped prove them.
In the quote you provide it is just saying that all of the planets would all go in the same direction if you were viewing them from the Sun, unlikely how they appear to behave when viewed form the Earth.
I have asked you before but you didn't answer, so again; what is Newton wrong about? Gravity? The Earth going around the Sun? Please explain what exactly your problem is so we can have a hope of discussing it.

Second, none here, nor any sane astronomer claims anything other then that the Earth turns and also goes around the Sun.
You however have yet to clearify whether or not you believe this.

Thrid, none of this has anything to do with the speed of light. Even if we accept your silly claim that Rømer's calculation is invalid because of the motion of the planets (which he knew and used to come to his figure) it is not the basis for the speed of light (or the Big Bang for that matter) and we have many other indepedant and more accurate ways to measure the speed of light.

So why do you have to be so dishonest to spread your truth? Why can't you answer simple questions?
Have you ever wondered why you can't answer them?

Cú Giobach

gkell3 wrote: »

"Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h.[17] This is obtained by dividing Earth's equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space," Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rotation

You have imaginations that can stomach junk like this instead of the common sense experience that the Earth turns once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days.

That is the only standard I accept as a point of departure for any discussion for all I have done so far is expose just how truly bad the situation is as the same people who can't tell what causes day to turn to night are wasting everyone's time and money pursuing a belief that humans can control the planet's temperature.

I've been doing some reading up on you Ger . It seems your quite famous web wide, haven't you got the hint after all these years yet? Nobody is interested in your rubbish.
P.S. I loved the donkey picture.

slade_x

If i take the below and rotate it 360 degrees with respect to itself no matter how many times i rotate it by 360 degrees and even move it in any direction it will always orient in the same direction


If i were to break it up into 5 steps moving along the direction of travel illustrated in the below image this is how it would orient depending on the degree of rotation.




Imagine in the below illustration that the reference object travels around in an orbit around the green object and rotates 4000 times per orbit, At every quarter mark it has rotated 1000 times and so will still face the same direction since it completed 360 degree rotations with respect to when it started. At reference it is facing the green object. At no other time in its orbit does it line up exactly with the green object again after exactly 360 degree rotations from reference orientation until it returns to its starting point which is labelled reference



Again no matter how many 360 degree rotations with respect to its reference orientation it would always orient the same way, if the reference object orientated the way it is were to rotate 1000 times by the time it reached any of points it will always orient the same way. which is illustrated below



See above and Say an observer were to stand in the reference object facing in the direction of the green object as the black line draws and not change their orientation, then if the reference object were to travel in the direction of travel illustrated and complete 1000 360 degree rotations, by the time the object got to the second position the observer would still be orientated with respect to when the travel started. And thus would no longer have a line of sight with the green object as they would have to rotate their orientation by 90 degrees in an anticlockwise direction to re acquire the object in their line of sight.

So to keep it in view as it travels around without the observer having to change their orientation the object would have to rotate a further 90 degrees at each point as in below to correct for the change in position relative to the green object.


Now lets say in the above the reference object just completes one 360 degree rotation in its orbit around the object. At each quarter way mark the black line points in the direction of the green object. if an observer in this instance were to maintain the same orientation as reference and look at the green object after a 90 degree rotation a quarter of the way around the observer would be facing the green object again. The same would be true if between those two points (halfway) we mark a 45 degree rotation.

So to the point if one were to only count the observation after each 360 degree rotation the green object would not be in view exactly as it was at the starting reference position. it would have to rotate additional degrees depending on its position in relation to the green object, as in above. If it only completes one 360 degree rotation in its orbit then only at one point will the same reference position be true.

If you allow just one 360 degree anitclockwise rotation and no less from reference to the 90 degree rotation position (which is again facing the object) it would have had to rotate 450 degrees (360 + 90) in total to face back to the green object. This is common sense

Rubecula

gkell3 wrote: »

Fact 2 : the Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days

Fact 3 : the Earth does not turn 1465 times in 1461 days as big bangers believe.

These are the things that will snap you out of your cult and return you to a functioning state,the simple things based on common sense will bring you back from meaningless junk of 'expanding space'.

What is a Big Banger? Someone who believes the Big Bang happened?

If that is what you mean then I am one of those. AND nowhere have I said anything about 1465 rotations in 1461 days.

So where you get this idea from I have no clue.

Fact 4 I am not a Cultist either. (That is the realm of religious maniacs mostly.)

Scientific knowledge is based on experimentation and/or observation. It has been observed that the universe is expanding. It has yet to make any observations proving that this is meaningless junk.

As for there being more rotations than there are days, read Slade_X post above this. It is simple enough for even the most blinkered of minds to understand.

Oh and I do think I am functioning perfectly well thank you very much.

Wh1stler

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The Earth actually turns 366.25 times a year and 367.25 in a leap year.
It has to turn 1 deg extra per solar day for a point to return to the noon position due to the Earth's movement in its orbit relative to the Sun. The actual rotation of the planet can be seen by the movements of the stars, 1465 rotations in 4 years. Gkell wont accept this.

Essentially, you are say that each day/night cycle requires the earth to rotate 361 degrees (or so); that the eath rotates 361 degrees between noon to the following noon?

And when the earth has experienced 365 noons, it is about six hours short of arriving at the same point in its orbit around the sun? That the 366th noon occurs about eighteen hours into the next orbit of the sun? And after 730 noons, the earth is twelve hours away from completing a second orbit of the sun?

On the 1460th noon, the earth will be twenty-four hours short of completing its fourth orbit of the sun hence the requirement for a 'leap-day' giving us 1461 noons every four orbits of the sun?

So, the number of degrees that the earth turns through every four complete orbits of the sun is ((1461 x 360) + (1461 x 1)) degrees approximately; about 1465 rotations.

Or to put it another way; if the earth was travelling toward the sun rather than around it then earth would experience an extra four noons in the same period of time.

Is this correct?