[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:09:53 -0800 (PST)


j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:     Allen,
   
  I'm not saying the axis doesn't or wouldn't exist...but that is what you are 
doing..?.Everything I am talking about is in recording it. that is the point it 
cannot exist for real and not be able to observe it But take my challenge: I 
have but you are confusing where you draw the axis with the fact that in order 
for a axis to be real you have to move to either side of it.. i can daw the 
axis anywhere but i sill have to move to either side of it..the either side of 
the nightly and the annual are not in the same location..you cannot colapse 
them into one and the same thing.!? Take your drawing of the nightly and 
annual.... but remove the annual baseline which confuses the issue.. if you did 
that then the second axis would not exist and that would not be HC..it is that 
simple.... What has your camera revolved around? nothing now.... becuse you 
removed that axis of rotation. That is Not HC and you cant do that in reality. 
like i said since the annual axis ( around that sun)
 exist then if you move around that axis or paralax the axis (at the sun) then 
the rotation must manifest itself simply looking at the other axis while you 
rotate around the nightly does not make it go away observationaly or in 
reality.....see attached diagram the key is the paralax conditon of the axis in 
question not the baseline.... 
   
  JA....

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Ja 
   
  The basline makes no diffenece where you view the ecliptic axis ....it does 
make a differnce for wether or not the axis exist or not or if you acctualy 
rotate around any given one or two axis.!?
   
  The rotation is not due to the baseline, it is due to the radial conditon 
around a given axis but you cant simply draw the ecliptic and celestial axis 
and call them the same axis !?  two axis have two different sets of vectors 
otherwise there would be no such thing as a orbital sander since the basline 
makes no differnce there either becsue the two roataional axis exisit in the 
same baseline?...Simply looking in a different direction then the direction of 
travle dose not constitue moving in that other direction. There is a difference 
between looking in a direction and traviling in a direction..!?.The direction 
of travle determines which axis you are traviling around, regarudless of what 
the base line is. You either move in that direction or rotate in that directio 
or you do not. You cannot have a real rotaion who's basline is litterly 0. The 
point was that simple moving that distance will not change where the star in 
the sky is. It does make a differnce for wether or not
 a rotaion exist or not. If that were true then no rotaion could exist ever. 
Rotaion is a not just linear motion it is a xy vector function.  You are not 
traviling around the celestial axis alone you are also in reality traviling 
around the ecliptic axis you cannot just call them one and the same thing. They 
are not ..again there is more then one angle in this rotation..look at the top 
view #1 and the side view#15.. 
  

j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
    Allen,
   
  I'm serious here. Take your top diagram and your bottom diagram... on each 
one, collapse the baseline of the annual axis to zero..... You will be left 
with a diagram of the earth that demonstrates only the nightly star trails in 
both cases. You have said the baseline should make no difference and that it is 
essentially zero.... so include that in your drawing and then show me how 
you'll ever record an annual trail with a camera that is fixed to the earth ?
   
  JA...
    
---------------------------------
  Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. 


    
---------------------------------
  Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it 
now.

PNG image

Other related posts: