[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Paul,,
the top and bottom either show the same thing or they do not..you said they
dont
only the bottom reproduces what is observed in reality....how much simpler
can it be..?
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
I don't think there is anything unique in the last five or six posts, it's all
been repetition.You keep telling me that I admit something when in fact it is
what I've been trying to get you to agree to for months. I keep asking you how
you went about trying to record these annual trails and you just keep telling
me that it isn't present in trails designed to demonstrate nightly motion. And
how you would think that any sane person would believe that rotation about two
axes simultaneously would show the neat circles shown is beyond me. We are
talking about one rotation and one revolution, each about different axes, and
on very different time scales. The same conditions obtain on the other planets
-- they ALL have rotation axes inclined to their plane of revolution, their
ecliptics. You see that from the outside -- absolutely untainted by being part
of the thing you are trying to measure. Why is it so hard for you to understand
that if it happens elsewhere in full view -- it
can happen here? Why is it so hard for you to understand that if you haven't
seen annual star trails, it just might be because you are not doing it
correctly!
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 6:56:24 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Pictures taken whenever you feel the need to bleed your hydraulic system when
overlaid WILL show an annual set of concentric star trails composed of randomly
spaced dots and centred on the ecliptic pole. that set of concentric star
trails will not appear the same as the nightly.......that is the
point!..<Isn't that just what I've been trying to get through to you for
months!>...if they do not appear the same as the nightly then HC is untennable
becuse what we observe in nature are identical nightly and annual..<I've asked
elswhere but I'll ask it again -- Just how did you go about trying to show
this???>...
Paul, you just admit the two views would not be the same here...Then you ask
how do i know this is the case in observational reality..?
Because, every star trail every produced or observed in reality, by anyone,
on any time lapse show the exact same concentric circles centered on the exact
same axis, ..not two differnt axis ..Therfore the motion as per HC cannot exist
becaue the(my) top drawing and the (My) bottom drawing are not the same only
the botom one is capable and will produce what we observe in reality....???
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pictures taken whenever you feel the need to bleed your hydraulic system when
overlaid WILL show an annual set of concentric star trails composed of randomly
spaced dots and centred on the ecliptic pole. that set of concentric star
trails will not appear the same as the nightly.......that is the
point!..<Isn't that just what I've been trying to get through to you for
months!>...if they do not appear the same as the nightly then HC is untennable
becuse what we observe in nature are identical nightly and annual..<I've asked
elswhere but I'll ask it again -- Just how did you go about trying to show
this???>...What don't you understand?
What don't you understand?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 11:13:32 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Paul,
If your camera on your plank diagram spun on its axis around the
globe(nightly) ..it will not get the same photo as it does going around the
plank at the same angle!.......try it <Try it? I don't understand what you
would have me try!!!> i already know it.... but you try it and see. You will
not get the same photograph! The rotation take place on two different axis the
angle of the camera is irrelevant!.<OK -- I've pointed it at the celestial
equator.>...However, i think a more fixed mechanics would be easier..but
donÃ?¢ââ??‰â??¢t take my word for it take a globe with the camera at the
same angle of the globe spin it and you will get one photo..nightly...now take
that same thing and put it on a merry-go-round leave the angle alone. taking
the photo only at the 24 hour mark.....YOU WILL NOT GET THE SAME
PHOTO!.......... reason: The angle of the camera is irrelevant. <Including the
celestial equator?> The stars will have different distances to the two
different axis
of rotation and the angle of the camera which remained unchanged will not hide
that fact! <Sorry but as usual your description produces only confusion in my
mind.>
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jack L
I've looked again at your drawing and I still don't get it. I don't understand
how it is that others do, especially J A whose insight I've had occasion to
admire. I'm sorry you don't like my honest opinion but you made a global
request. And it's not semantics -- it's terminology.
I don't recall anyone responding at the time so I'll give you -- and anyone
else who wants a piece of me -- another chance to criticise my thoughts on the
matter. I don't like reposting but I've attached for the second time my drawing
'ThePlank.png'. Would anyone who finds this illustration difficult to
understand, please respond. I happen to think this is streets ahead in the race
to depict what heliocentrists think on this matter.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 8:43:12 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Ã?Æ?Ã?¯Ã?â??Ã?»Ã?â??Ã?¿ DIV {MARGIN:0px;} Dear Paul,
I haven't read your critique because (A) My drawing IS meant to show the
heliocentric model and the alleged two simultaneous rotations as described by
Neville's drawing. (B) In your criticism of my terminology I am assuming you
are unable to see what I'm obviously explaining even if it is wrong. Everyone
else seems to understand what I was getting at. Please spare me the semantics.
All who are checking my drawing: Please address your technical questions to
Neville whose drawing I attempted to show more graphically. The only change I
would make at this point is that I have indicated rotation of the ecliptic
plane. This is wrong although I doubt it would change anything the gist of my
illustration.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Jack L
I've been thinking about your drawing too and am as puzzled as Marc V. This
drawing seems to be some sort of hybrid of both HC and GC systems. And your
later post says that the drawing is what you claim heliocentrists claim which I
for one disclaim.
I see a number of terminology problems here -- let me address these first.
[1] The Earth does not rotate on two axes -- it rotates on one axis and
revolves around the Sun (surprisingly not shown). [2] The word 'traverse' means
to cross, to follow a zig-zag course (several places).
Now problems of description. [3] It is not clear to me what is '..the
world...'. If the green circles are a spot on the world how then does its
surface encompass the plane of the ecliptic? [4] Earth rotates once in ~ 23h
56m not one (24h) day. [5] The Earth's orbit lies on the plane of the ecliptic,
the 'axis' of which is the NEP not the NCP (nice to have the company --
welcome!) This is the axis about which the Earth revolves -- a circular
translation. There is only one ecliptic plane -- not four, not 365.25 -- one!
[6] That one pole circles another is just a figure of speech in relative terms
used for illustrative purposes only. The stars are stationary. [7] As above --
there is only one rotation. You cannot compare radial velocity with
translational velocity. 'Happening on very different time scales' would be
closer.
I really don't know why you guys are so hung up over these issues -- the
whole thing is dead simple. There are two motions -
1. The Earth revolves around the Sun describing an ellipse on the ecliptic
plane. The Sun -- the centre of mass of Sun/Earth -- is at one focus of the
ellipse. This focus is also on the ecliptic plane. A line orthogonal to this
plane passing through the Sun is known as the Ecliptic Pole. It points in a
constant direction.
2. The Earth rotates on its axis (you can't have one without the other --
is this a redundancy I wonder?) once in ~ 23h 56m. The axis of this rotation is
inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. To a first approximation, there is no
precession. This axis is thus pointing always in one direction. It is called
the Celestial Pole and is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic at an angle of
~ 66.5 deg or 23.5 deg from the ecliptic pole.
3. These motions do not interact. The Earth's axis of rotation could be
inclined at any angle to the ecliptic plane and it would have no effect on its
revolution. (See Uranus for example).
Paul D
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
