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

What we have in the HC explanations thus far is a cornucopia of 
contradictions...lets review..
   
  1.What makes star trails is rotation.
  2. To view a rotation of a axis only requires a radial condition over that 
axis.
  3. Simply looking in a different direction or at another axis does not make 
the rotational effect of that radial condition disappear.
  4. What determines the size of star trails is the distance the star is from 
the axis of rotation not wether or not we are looking at it or in some other 
direction.
   
  HC claims there is no rotation on the ecliptic even though there is a radial 
condition over the course of a year around that axis........ ..Then claims that 
the radial condition around the ecliptic axis causes a rotation on the ecliptic 
produces the nightly star trails on the annual orbital path due to that non 
existent rotation around the ecliptic. 
   
  If there is no radial condition around the ecliptic then there can be no 
rotation and thus rotation cannot cause annual star trails.
   
  If there is a radial condition on the ecliptic axis then by definition a 
rotation exist, and just because you are looking ain a different direction 
cannot make the effect disappear ( the nightly proves this, you don?t have to 
look at the nightly axis of rotation to see the nightly rotational effect) 
  We agree that simply looking in another direction will not prevent you from 
seeing a rotational effect if the rotation exist. However, that is the very 
reason HC is arguing that you cannot observe the annual rotation around the 
ecliptic. First there is no rotation around the ecliptic then there is but 
because we are facing the celestial axis ( a different direction) then we 
cannot see it. 
   
  If there is a rotation around the ecliptic then the size of the star trails 
would be determined solely due to the distance of the star from the axis in 
question, not what direction we were looking in!?
   
  If the direction we were facing determined if we see a rotation or not then 
if you do not face the nightly rotation you would not be able to observe it. To 
argue that the nightly is all around is meaningless for so to is the annual 
orbit. A radial condition exist on the ecliptic axis every 24 hours of every 
night the direction you look at cannot determine if you see it or not. The 
translational motion of earth?s orbit only applies to the celestial axis of 
spin the earth itself is spinning. 
   
  A observer parallaxes the annual ecliptic axis in the same way that the 
observer parallaxes the celestial axis nightly. By definition if the observer 
radially parallaxes the celestial over the course of a year, he must also 
radially parallax the ecliptic. The direction the observe is facing has no 
effect on wether or not he can or does observe a rotation. If there is no 
radial parallax of the ecliptic there can be no radial parallax of the 
celestial. If that were the case there could be no annual star trails period. 
The fact that we do not see it is not proof that you cannot see it, it is proof 
it cannot exist.
   
  Finally, the icing on the cake in the arguments is that since we would 
observe the nightly in the annual motion ( notwithstanding all the previous 
contradictions needed to arrive at any annual star trails to begin with) 
therefore that proves the two are equivalent. This is not logically valid any 
more then looking a t a radial sander and a orbital sander and arguing that 
since we will see the circular motion of the circular sander in the radial 
sander therefore the two are equivalent and we would not be able to see the 
orbital motion in the orbital sander....!?


Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:   Quoting Neville Jones :

> Ahhh, at last Regner, you have played the HC trump card.
>
I do not see I have done such a thing.

> So after all this
> you are telling us that we can see annual star trails after all?!!
> 
No - There are no new claims - I have just rephrased earlier statements.
We have all agreed that the paralactic motions are not what we are looking
for. They are not detectable by the casual observer.

> So the 'translational' motion is not a translation?
> 
Sigh - of course it is.

> Since it is some form of rotation
>
No it is not.

> (hence the ellipses),
>
From a rotation you would not be able to get anything but great circles
around the rotational axis (Stars tracing constant latitude w.r.t. that
axis).
The ellipses are very small and arise from the parallaxes arising from
the TRANSLATIONAL motion of Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

> then why does the
> angular distance between star and ecliptic polar axis not matter?
> 
The eccentricity of the (very small) paralactic ellipse does depend
on that. See pt.5. of my post on parallaxes:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00917.html
Again I believed we had agreed that the paralactic motion is too small
to be of consequence on this issue. I do believe, however, that it is
part of the confusion here. Therefore look at this post of mine:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00996.html

Regards,

Regner


> Neville
> www.GeocentricUniverse.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: art@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:59:23 +1100
> 
> Exactly - you got it.
> The star-trails of the annual translational motion is the parallax ellipses.
> Far too small to see by just having a look at the sky. There is no rotation
> involved in the annual orbit around the Sun - only translation.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Regner
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> 
> Quoting j a :
> 
> > Regner, 
> > 
> > Yes, I agree also. But my point is.... How can you tell were the annual
> > axis is, based on star trails... you can't. With a baseline of essentially
> > zero, any annual axis we propose collapses into the nightly axis... That
> is
> > why a translation is not detectable using star trail.
> > 
> > JA
> > 
> > Regner Trampedach wrote:
> > J A, the point is that in the bottom figure, the two axes are coincident,
> > in the top figure they are not. You can't change that by any tilting of
> > the figures. I fully support Allen here.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Regner
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > -
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting Allen Daves :
> > 
> > > No they are not the same..there is a differnce in rotaion aound the
> > celestial
> > > axis (bottom) and just looking at the celestial axis while in rotation
> > > (TOP)..one is translational the other is not........rotation is a fuction
> > of
> > > xy around z thoes variable are not identical in both diagrams........look
> > > again they are not the same....I think i hjust found where the difficulty
> > for
> > > you is..
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > j a wrote:
> > > May I point out that if the basline is zero - then both drawings are
> > > exactly the same. 
> > > 
> > > Allen Daves wrote:
> > > 
> > > The point of the non HC drawing is simply that although that is not how
> > the
> > > HC folk would describe the mechanics of HC, that is the only mechanics
> > that
> > > would allow and are capable of replicating the nightly motion in the
> > annual
> > > orbital motion with no other motions perceivable and no distinction
> > between
> > > the two! Therefore, although no one would draw the solar system that way
> > > (bottom drawing) that is the only way that you can archive hiding the
> > annual
> > > motion behind the nightly and making them indistinguishable from each
> > other.
> > > The point of the top drawing is that it cannot and will not replicated
> the
> > > nightly without demonstrating a secondary annual motion. As I said the
> two
> > > drawings are not equivalent. The reason the top drawing is not capable of
> > > hiding the annual motion in the nightly (as the bottom can and would) is
> > that
> > > rotation is s function of x& y vectors around the z axis. If the two
> > vectors
> > > and z axis do not say constant then they cannot produce the same thing as
> > > the nighty rotation where all three variables do stay constant. You see
> > the
> > > slight of hand that HC uses is the failure to point out that not only is
> > the
> > > orbital motion of the celestial axis transnational but they imply that
> the
> > > annual orbit itself rides the 23 degree plane (That is why there examples
> > > try to emphasize and get you to look at and only focus on the change in
> > > latitude of the camera around the earth annually and how that "rides" the
> > > 23.44 degree celestial plane) The top drawing depicts a camera that
> > rotates
> > > in one direction while looking at another. The problem is it is backwards
> > > from what it would have to be it were to hid the annual motion. It
> rotates
> > in
> > > a different direction then the nightly while looking at the nightly.
> While
> > > the bottom drawing is a camera the is looking at the nightly rotation
> > while
> > > in a orbit that also mimics the nightly rotation. The two drawings are
> not
> > > equivalent and only the bottom one is and would hide and make the annual
> > and
> > > nightly indistinguishable from each other.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I attach it here again for any late comers.......
> > > 
> > > Jack Lewis wrote:
> > > Dear Allen,
> > > Just a point of clarification. In the 'non HC' drawing the camera is in
> > one
> > > position whilst the earth rotates below it. Is this deliberate or should
> > the
> > > camera positions be the same as the 'HC' drawing? This would mean that
> the
> > > ONLY difference between the two drawings is the angle of the ecliptic
> with
> > > respect to the stars.
> > > 
> > > Jack
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: Allen Daves 
> > > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:44 AM
> > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
> > > 
> > > 
> > > One last thing, for the evening.....They say a picture speaks a thousand
> > > words...... Hopefully you will all be able to see this....brand new
> > attached
> > > diagram. it illustrates the fundamental error in your argument...........
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
> > now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free 3D Earth Screensaver
> 
> Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
> 
> 
> 



PNG image

Other related posts: