[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:27:22 -0800 (PST)
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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..?Whether or not proper steps are taken to record something is very
important.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 I don't say that you
can't observe it, I say that the camera following the 24 hour separated photo
path around the annual axis, follows an exact copy of the nightly, therefore
you are recording the nightly..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.This is the rub.... this is what separates
your conclusion from mine.... there are no other differences.... If they were
not in the same location, I agree you would have to record
something different that does not show up in reality.... will you admit that
if they were in the same location that I would be right?....you cannot colapse
them into one and the same thing.!? If I'm right you can and if you're right
you cannotTake 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....
The entire differnce between our positions is whether 12 hours later and 6
months later the camera is the same spot or a different spot.
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.
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
Other related posts:
