[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Ja,
I agree with your drawings... Again no one is debating the fact that the
annual motion will record the nightly motion....that is a FACT!...however it is
also a fact that a secondary motion would and must be present that is not a
assumption that is a physical fact, just as in the case of a orbital
sander........Your conclusion which states just the opposite is an assumption
by definition.....What do you not understand?
more in blue....
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In red below
Allen, you are assuming what I'm assuming and not even looking at my diagrams
or logic because you are so convinced of your own. Allow me some lee-way here
and just respond as simply as possible to the following.
Tell me if the following statement is correct or not:
In HC, when recording a nightly circle, it is recorded because the camera has
rotated about the nightly axis and has maintained the same angle to that axis,
such that if you set up the camera at angle X from the axis to start with, in
12 hours it will be negative X from that axis because it is fixed to the ground
and the ground cirlces around the axis.
If you do not agree with a portion of the statement then let me know what
that is. I will follow up from your responce.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ja,
You are not free of assumptions! .... (who isn't ;-) )That is what i keep
trying to point out to you.. (you keep pointing out the aurguement of the
proof) No im pointin out a physical factthat you keep asserting as your
conclusion that is infact true. Look, go to the hardware store and buy a
circular sander (nightly rotation) and a orbital sander ( nightly + a orbit)
that is the difference!...Just because the nightly is visible in what we
observe annually does not negate the annual orbital (for the same reasons that
the nightly is there in the first place). (Namely, parallax of the axis of
rotation)...In a orbital sander the nightlycircles are going to be there and we
are looking at that axis but also in it is a "annual" motion as well. There is
a secondary motion that is there and must be there because there is a second
axis of rotation...You are assuming that since you are looking at the same sky
and you see the same nightly circles then you cannot see the other.
(I am not basing anything I do on what is seen in the sky. I am modeling HC
and saying what will this or that camera configuration record, given HC
motions) SO am i we are not disagreeing about the mechaincs or even your
drawing except that you are only drawing a concluion based on one not two axis
of rotation. This is based on two false premises
1.That since you see the one you would not see the other (I am not starting
with this as an assumption, it is a conclusion given certain parameters)..NO it
is an assumed conclusion! that is false and falseafiable....... .a orbital
sander proves that wrong! (nightly) circles will be in the (annual) orbital as
well as the other axis of rotation. If you don?t assume this then you have no
argument..?
2. If you look in another direction then the axis in question you could not
see the rotation on the other axis...the nightly disproves that ...if you do
not assume this then you have no argument I do not assume this either!!! I am
not saying that any particular dirction of setting up a camera will change
anything, I am saying that the nightly and annual motion do change the angle of
recording with respect to the annual that you are trying to record and thus
change what is recorded.
without this your conclusion based on "certain parameters" makes no sense..?
Your whole argument is based on those two basic and falsified assumptions.
Otherwise you are going to have to show us something completely different......
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
now.
Other related posts:
