[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:20:01 -0800 (PST)
We have already discused this Philip and even Regner Agreed to the
fundimentals..look at the diagram....
That argument violates three preiviously agreed apon facts
1. the two are not equal.....only the botom one would mimic the nightly
action
2. a rotation still exist (and it is around the ecliptic)
3. looking in another direction does not make a rotational effect disappear
I will add also that the argument violates any and all experimentation....!?
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen, you need to read this especially what I underlined, and be
sure you understand what is being said.. Philip.
Animation #2 - daily (Solar) snapshots
---------------------------------------
EarthOrb3_10_trop.gif, please refer to this as Ani.2.
We now add the daily rotation/spin of the Earth around the celestial axis,
and we take a snapshot every tropical (Solar) day.
Notice how the line to the Sun (pink) stays at the same longitude - that
is the definition of tropical (Solar) day. The latitude of that line,
however, changes during the year - going from +23.5° in the Northern
summer (right) to -23.5° in the Northern winter (left) - that's why we
have seasons.
Allen, Neville and others, have suggested that cameras mounted (fixed) on
Earth, would see a rotation around the ecliptic axis (dotted line) during
a year. I have therefore mounted a camera on the equator to look straight
up at zenith (radially out from the Earth). I have mounted my camera to
look towards the Sun at noon, instead of out at midnight, but I hope you
realize that this has no consequence for this discussion.
The green line shows the direction of view of that camera.
During the year it sweeps out the equatorial plane of Earth.
It rotates around the Earth's axis of daily rotation = celestial axis.
If you look at it from above, the projection will make it look like the
camera looks straight towards the Sun - This is what Allen's and Neville's
figures depicts (except they have their cameras face the opposite direction
towards the local meridian at midnight). It is however, a projection effect
- in three dimensions you realize that the camera (green line) only points
to the Sun twice a year - at the solstices.
It should also be clear that you can move the camera to any spot on Earth
and have it look in any direction - if it is kept fixed, it will only
see the daily rotation around the celestial axis (dashed line).
Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day (24h00m), just means you are
taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the daily rotation whose real
period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For Each day, you let the
Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a picture. A year of that
will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial axis. During the
same time you have completed a full TRANSLATION around the Sun.
Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly motion,
just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation.
Looking carefully at high-quality images taken every sidereal (stellar)
day (see Ani.1) you will see parallaxes for some of the closer stars
- this is the manifestation of the annual (translational) motion around
the Sun.
James, your drawing is beautiful and shows the same thing, as I show.
The only slightly misleading thing, is that you have drawn grid-lines on
Earth that are w.r.t. the ecliptic axis (green) - the grid should be tilted
to be aligned with the celestial (red) axis. I also agree with Neville and
Allen (I believe) that one of the blue "cameras" should be marked with a
different colour, to be able to follow the rotation.
Sorry for this post being so long, but there were many points to address.
I also try to keep misunderstandings to a minimum by rephrasing things.
Kind regards,
Regner
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:27 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
I took a break this week end and this is the first time i got on since
friday. I have to say I?m suprised by this but I respect your decision Neville.
I will not concede however for two basic reasons.
1.Regner's/ these argumental proofs are made w.r.t. a camera sweeping out of
it place (Green arrow/line) when facing the ecliptic axis. My argument does not
have anything to do with the camera facing the ecliptic axis. It is looking at
the celestial axis all year every day..it canont change its oreintaion nor can
it sweep anywhere!? The cameras orientation can never changes wrt any axis,(
it could not follow the green arrow, ever ) for it is always parallel to the
celestial axis. (all day all year) That would never change year around. at
midnight parallel to the celestial axis is by the defintion we all agreed to a
rotation. The point i argue on is that simply looking at the celestial axis
does not/ cannot make the rotation & parallax of the actual ecliptic axis or
its effects disappear. This is the point of the diagrams. It shows that and as
of yet no one as addressed any error with it? Not only does that diagram it
self make & prove the point. But Regner even agreed
to the fundamental meaning of that diagram. If simply looking at the celestial
axis does not make the rotational effect around the ecliptic disappear then
what is the argument? If it does how dose it do that without violating the
previous axioms to which all agreed to !? The fact that the nightly would be
manifested in the annual was and is not in question. Nor does it automatically
follow that there is no other motion to be observed for the reasons i gave ( &
example radial sander v circular)
2. Secondly, Actual experiments not just a the lack of logic from its
distracters will show all of my arguments valid, including the basic
conclusion. A camera using the real Polaris and stars rotated and translated
the way we have been discussing will show the difference between the
motions??even in translation with the conditions we have all discussed and even
agreed to.
Untill some one acctualy address the arguments that I put forward i will not
conceed. If someone has then please outline it copy and past the parts of
Regners post that i missed for me cause i dont see it at all?
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear All,
I respected Regner's request not to immediately respond to his last posting,
but instead have been giving this whole matter very careful consideration.
There is now no doubt in my mind that the 24-hour images about the ecliptic
polar axis are always going to be snapshots of the diurnal rotation in the
heliocentric model and I concede, therefore, that the celestial poles argument
does not disprove the heliocentric model.
Steven and my web site will be amended in the near future, God willing, to
reflect this retraction.
I would just like to thank you all for some excellent debating and for the many
illustrations that several of you have provided. I hope that none of you feel
that your efforts were either wasted or unappreciated.
This topic will not be closed yet, since Allen has not had a chance to fully
digest Regner's post. If he concedes, as I have, then we will close it off,
otherwise he will now have one more to convince!
I hope that our little forum family is strengthened by this discussion and that
each one of us has learnt something from it, I know that I have. If, however,
anyone feels disappointed, then I apologise to you for building your hopes up.
Best wishes,
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 24/11/2007
5:58 PM
Other related posts:
