[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles ..part 2
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:48:39 +1100
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> New diagram only #15-6...........To help demonstrate the subtle error of
> claiming the annual motion only exist in the equatorial plane..
>
Please, Allen - don't be this silly.
* I have never claimed an annual motion in the equatorial plane.
* The Earth's orbit is per definition in the ecliptic plane.
* But, the Earth's motion in the ecliptic plane is NOT a ROTATION.
It is a TRANSLATION - It is shown in Ani.1
* That yearly motion gives rise to the parallax ellipses - nothing else.
They can bee seen by taking pictures spaced sidereal (stellar) days apart.
* Taking pictures tropical (Solar) days apart, seeing the sky turn once
a year, has nothing to do with the annual motion - it is just taking
pictures at different phases of the daily rotation around the celestial
axis.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% %
% Q U E S T I O N: %
% DO YOU SEE ANY ROTATION IN Ani.1? %
% %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Ani.1: //www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/gifDlZl4UirSD.gif
From post //www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg01041.html
- Regner
>
> I have told you that your first figure of this post (two plots) are
> projections on a plane - the ecliptic, which means that you miss the point
> that a line (camera, umbrella, alligator I don't care what) sticking out
> from a fixed pointed on Earth, will NOT stay in the ecliptic plane - rather
> it will stay in the equatorial plane.
>
>
> wrong! The vertical distance of travel that the camera moves (Up & down)
> over the course of a year does not constitute the annual orbital motion
> remaining in the celestial plane! ( diagram 15-5) it only demonstrates a
> angled view of the motion that exist in the ecliptic plane. ( a simple
> experiment with a camera will prove this for you) It only moves and stays in
> the ecliptic plane all year long. that is the whole point and difference
> between angular view and a angular displacement. If the camera was not in
> real rotation around the ecliptic then yes there would only be the motions in
> the celestial plane. That is the difference between real and imaginary axis &
> motion.
>
> Your projections onto the ecliptic means that your top two plots of
> this post, correspond to a top-view of your very bottom figure of this post.
> The one with the title "This is NOT HC & THE TWO ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!"
> - the title, of course, we agree on.
> Despite the title, this is what you show in your very first two figures
> of this post.
>
> > ( For good reason..you cannot demonstrate that the
> > conditions i show don?t exist just as shown, rather you attempt opt argue
> > their meaning. It is in that endeavor I demonstrate your inconsistency and
> > contradiction of terms)
> >
> I'll quietly ignore those assumptions and insinuations about me.
>
> > B. You attempt to use some standard of "rotation" that is either entirely
> > inconsistent with what was already agreed to.
> >
> No.
>
> > Now the diagrams are pretty
> > self explanatory. I show a fixed camera on the equator looking at the
> > celestial axis.
> > Since the earth spins around that celestial axis at the
> > equator, the camera will always point to the celestial axis.
> >
> Absolutely correct (well, a celestial pole, obviously - not the axis).
>
> > Thus the cameras
> > orientation to the night sky is know throughout the whole experiment. The
> > camera cannot and will not rotate out of that position ever.
> >
> Absolutely correct.
> But then we agree, and there is only one axis of rotation!
> - the celestial axis.
>
> > The transnational motion of the camera
> >
> Hmmm, I guess that precludes a camera that is fixed on Earth... the earth
> translates to the ecliptic plane not the celestial.... that is why there is
> rotaion on the ecliptic axis and not just the celestial axis....
>
> > to the celestial axis only applies to the
> > cameras "x" axis.
> >
> That doesn't make sense. it is obvious you are not lookong at the diagrams
> they define this for you.....#15-3
> It is the whole Earth, including camera, that is performing a continuous
> translational motion.
> That motion is in the ecliptic plane. You have one
> axis, the Y-axis, in the ecliptic plane. It takes two axes to define (span)
> a plane if the axis are in that plane.
>
> > It?s x axis to the celestial axis (see attached diagram.)
> >
> It only takes one axis to define a plane perendicular to that axis.
> Your X-axis (the celestial axis) defines the equatorial plane and
> your Z-axes lies in that plane.
>
> > #15-3 The camera unequivocally rotates as a function of y & z vectors
> >
> Your statement doesn't make sense, and is therefore not unequivocal.
> The rotation is around your X-axis (= the celestial axis). Your Z-axis
> is in the equatorial plane, as defined by your X-axis. NO! The whole earth
> and every point on earth moves in the ecliptic plane. The vertical distance
> that the z y axis traverse (up & down) over the course of a year does not
> constitute remaining in the equatorial/ celestial plane while in orbit! It
> does effectively constitute remaining in the ecliptic plane. The condition of
> a camera on the equatorial plane is only a angled view point of the rotation
> around the ecliptic axis. Merely looking at a rotation from a different view
> does not make it go away!? All you are doing is describing a angled view and
> attempting to argue that it is the same thing as rotational motion on the
> equatorial plane. They are not the same and that is a grossly erroneous
> argument. Again the differences in the concepts and how you know one from the
> other is the point of diagrams # 15-2; 15-3, 15-4 and now once more in 15-5
>
>
>
> This is your fourth & by far your most subtle mistake.......
>
> I will try to consolidate the issues of confusion I will try to
> consolidate these over the next several days.........I think I understand
> exactly what & why there is so much confusion with you and the others
> now.....
>
>
>
> > which lie on the ecliptic plane.
> >
> Only the Y-axis is in the ecliptic plane.
> >
> > 2. You claim:........."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"
> > A. This issue was never in question, nor is it even relevant.
> >
> This is were I get thoroughly lost.
> You are concerned about what happens to a camera, fixed on Earth, pointing
> in a fixed direction with respect to Earth, and when I tell you what happens
> to that camera I am dismissed as being irrelevant!
> I think it's time for me to get back to work.
> Allen, please read my replies and try to understand. We have hashed through
> this same stuff so many times now.
>
> Regner
>
>
> > We are not
> > looking for any motion of the stars around their various latitudes on the
> > celestial sphere/circles. We are only looking for a change in the latitude
> > itself wrt the cameras fixed position due to rotation around the ecliptic
> > axis.
> > B. Since we know which stars are on which latitude, the stars can be in
> > constant motion around their given latitudes but, if there is a change in
> the
> > latitude ( wrt camera) that change will be apparent without looking/
> focusing
> > on any given or specific star.
> > Then you err with this conclusion which as of yet has not demonstrated a
> > logical path to its arrival... it is not a path it is merely reasserts
> your
> > position.
> > "Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly
> > motion, just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation.".
> > The motion of the stars in progressive circles around their specified
> > latitude is and has been completely irrelevant from the very beginning. Of
> > course the stars are going to move on the nightly circles of their given
> > latitudes in the same way that any other compound motion will still must
> > demonstrate any of the other motions used to create it? What does not
> > logically & mechanically follow is that the presence or observation of one
> > motion negates the observablity of the other. You conclusion is not
> logically
> > supported any more then it would be logical to say that because we observe
> a
> > circular motion in a orbital sander thus the all the motions are
> equivalent
> > and we could not observe the orbital motion either..!? it would be one
> thing
> > if you demonstrated that as I did in my diagram which showed how to make
> the
> > two motions indistinguishable. You on the other hand don?t demonstrate or
> > explain anything, you merely assert that you could not because there is no
> > rotational
> > motion. However you can?t explain how or why there is no rotational motion
> > without contradicting the previously agreed to items or arguing in
> > circles..!? The only reasons thus far given by anyone to explain how or
> why
> > there is no rotation around the ecliptic axis contradict what was already
> > agreed upon.
> > I show how you can mimic the nightly motion as a annual orbit such that
> the
> > two would be indistinguishable. There was agreement that it would. However
> we
> > also agreed it was not equivalent to HC. (See attached # 15-2) merely
> looking
> > a different direction ( at the ecliptic axis) does not make a rotation or
> a
> > rotational effect disappear. That was agreed upon. Merely asserting that
> > there is no rotation demonstrates nothing. Telling us that the annual
> motion
> > produces a snapshot of the nightly motions says absolutely nothing.
> >
> > Conclusion:
> > I have demonstrated what constitutes a rotation and what would produce a
> > rotational effect.
> > I have demonstrated how a fixed camera to the earth meets those conditions
> > precisely over the course of a annual orbit.
> > Your only objections have been either an assertion that it does not exist
> > or some vauge implied reference that since the camera is facing the
> celestial
> > axis it only rotates around the celestial axis. It is that point of
> > contradiction that seems to be missed. We already agreed to the fact that
> > there is no difference between rotation and merely looking in another
> > direction while in rotation. The same effects would be observable if a
> > rotation exist. Then you attempt to argue in circles by claiming there is
> no
> > rotation. The arguments you have put forward only assert that conclusion
> as
> > the premise on which the argument (that supposedly proves/ demonstrates
> it)
> > is built upon.
> > If looking in a different direction does not make it disappear then as of
> > yet there has been no argument that demonstrates (not merely asserts) that
> > there is no rotation around the ecliptic. Your arguments not mine are
> missing
> > too too many peices with absolutly no logical path demonstrated for the
> > conclusitons arival.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regner Trampedach wrote:
> > Allen - I don't get your arguments - there are too many pieces missing.
> > Could you please, step-for-step, tell us how my statements (from the
> caption
> > of Ani.2):
> > "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."
> > violates your
> > "three [sic]preiviously agreed [sic]apon facts
> > 1. the two are not equal.....only the [sic]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"
> > Well - it does, of course, violate the parenthesis in 2.
> >
> > Ad 1. That's why I stated that in the captions - and why would I waste
> time
> > and bandwidth making two identical animations?!?!?
> > Ad 2. I do not, and have never, agreed to there being a ROTATION around
> the
> > ecliptic axis - If you meant to say that I have agreed to that, then
> > you are severely twisting my words.
> > Ad 3. Yes, I have pointed out that any rotation will be
> visible/recognizable
> > which-ever direction you look at. Even in that post
> >
> > - Regner
> >
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> > -
> >
> >
> > Quoting Allen Daves :
> >
> > > 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
> > 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
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
