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

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)

you in black
  Me in bule 
  you in red
  Purple this time....

        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.NO it is only looking in another direction but it 
is not taking the same path. Again looking in a direction other then the 
rotation does not make it go away or even disapear, that is what you are 
saying.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, Yes there is huge difference.....one is a roation around the 
celestial axis, the other is simply looking in a differnt direction but not 
rotating around the celestial axis.. The axis are real not just arbitray 
imagination...It is rotating around the ecliptic axis (sun) looking in a 
different direction then the (sun)roation does not make it 
disapear.period!.....that is the difference. 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? They cant be, they are 
subetended to each other at 23.44 degrees.. simply looking at it does not mean 
you are there????..If they were it would not be two axis in rotation in two 
different planes..!?....you cannot colapse them into one and the same thing.!? 
If I'm
 right you can and if you're right you cannot No it is a fact  you cannot and 
Even Regner agreed.? 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.... 
  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. ..  the two are 
not equivalent just because you look at one while in motion around the other.!?
.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: