[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing

Allen,
This assembly of words is not making any sense:
  "......but mechanicaly that is not even posible requries
   contridictions in terms and defintions to accomplish such feets, as
   I have pointed out......"
Please tell me what those mechanical impossibilities are - I see none.
Please tell me what those contradictions are - I see none.
Please do it clearly and briefly - Let's not get back to our old
habits again.

    Regner

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> The point i was making was the point you raised..."Again, not detectable by
> the casual observer."......but mechanicaly that is not even posible requries
> contridictions in terms and defintions to accomplish such feets, as I have
> pointed out......
> 
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> Quoting Allen Daves :
> 
> > NO you can not, and that is the rub. HC claims there is no difference
> between
> > what the annual motion and the nightly motion produce.
> >
> That is not quite correct. I think I have found one of the misunderstandings
> in this discussion. Please read carefully.
> a) The daily rotation is around the celestial axis.
> It produces the nightly star-trails.
> We agree on that.
> b) The annual orbital translation around the Sun occurs in the ecliptic.
> This produces the paralactic ellipses, as I described in pt.5 of this post:
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00917.html
> "5) Parallax displays itself as an ellipse with the eccentricity
> (oblateness)
> determined by the ecliptic (not the celestial) latitude of the star. At
> the [celestial poles] the paralactic motion over a year, will describe a
> circle - at the ecliptic equator a star will go back and forth along
> a straight line."
> As Paul Deema pointed out in this post:
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00921.html
> The [celestial poles] should be changed to 'ecliptic poles'.
> This is the annual motion - it is very small scale and will not be
> observed by the casual observer.
> I believe we agree on that.
> c) The crucial part.
> What has been interpreted as a separate annual rotation around the
> celestial axis is nothing of the sort.
> To recapitulate:
> i) 1 tropical (Solar) day (24h00m) of the daily rotation puts the
> observer in the same orientation with respect to the Sun.
> ii) 1 sidereal (stellar) day (23h56m) of the daily rotation puts the
> observer in the same orientation with respect to the stars.
> Several people have referred to observations in the same direction
> w.r.t Earth (e.g., straight up) at local midnight, as showing the
> annual motion - see various figures by Allen and Neville.
> That is not correct.
> It is merely showing different phases of the daily motion.
> The true period of the daily rotation, is the sidereal day.
> Taking pictures every Solar day merely means that you let the Earth
> rotate a bit further (in its daily rotation) before you take a picture.
> It's not a separate movement.
> Taking pictures every sidereal day will result in the annual paralactic
> motion. Again, not detectable by the casual observer.
> 
> I hope this helps,
> 
> Regner
> 
> 
> > So how are you going
> > to show the motion, when HC itself calims there is no differnece between
> the
> > two..? However, HC can not do that the way HC is modeled. That is our
> point!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Deema 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Jack L
> > This heliocentrist is NOT saying that the second (annual revolution)
> motion
> > cannot be detected. I have been describing how it CAN be detected for a
> year
> > and a half but unfortunately this seems to be in most everyone's dark
> > cupboard into which none of you seem to have the courage look.
> > I've tried to remove the subject from this emotional exclusion zone by
> > shifting the phenomenon to Mars but that didn't work either. See several
> > short posts "Translational motion of Mars". 
> > Egocentrism? Spelling error or is there a point here that I am missing?
> > Paul D
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Jack Lewis 
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 9:08:38 PM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
> > 
> > Dear All,
> > In the heliocentric model it would appear that there are two movements
> > taking place, which is not disputed, but the observations support only one
> > movement- egocentrism. The heliocentrists seem to be saying that the
> second
> > movement cannot be detected for reasons I do not understand. Will it help
> if
> > I ask the question, why can't it be detected if it exists? We can't see
> the
> > moon turning actually but we know it does simply by the observations and
> > dynamics involved. Therefore I would expect the helios to be able to do
> the
> > same. 
> > 
> > Jack 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Allen Daves 
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:52 PM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
> > 
> > 
> > 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....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Other related posts: