[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles ..part 2
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Allen Daves :
> 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.
I know that is the problem. that assertion is clearly wrong and i have
demonstated it as such.....
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 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.....
* The Earth's orbit is per definition in the ecliptic plane. YES and with the
combined motion of the earth's spin ( you seem so eagar to ignore) it performs
a progressive radial oreintaion in the ecliptic plane ( rotation around the
ecliptic axis)
* But, the Earth's motion in the ecliptic plane is NOT a ROTATION.
It is a TRANSLATION - It is shown in Ani.1 Only if you ignore the spin of the
earth which does and will perform a radial oreintation to the ecliptic no nust
the celestial...
* That yearly motion gives rise to the parallax ellipses - nothing else. No it
creates a combied motion circular and orbital ie the circular motion of the
circular sander can be seen in the orbital sander however the two still have
distict motions. the fact that the motion gives rise to the parallax ellipses(
celestial axis) has nothing to do with the rotational effects on the ecliptic
that must exist if the motions as per HC existed......I have proven this
logicaly over and over again as well as show the flaw in your arguments..
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 then what is your point!?
If the nightly motion seen in the annaul orbit has nothing to do with it..I
agree...how does it prevent observing it? the two must be distict motions just
like the observations of the circular sander and the orbital sander.....
does it - it is just taking
pictures at different phases of the daily rotation around the celestial
axis. This is not a explination, this is simply your assertion that you keep
making based on the false premisis i keep showing to be in error!?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% %
% 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:
