[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:41:25 -0800 (PST)
OK, my responces are in red and they run far far down - I hope I went as far
down as needed and answered the questions you wanted. If I could sum up what I
am trying to get accross to you: The star trail circle produced by a star about
any axis and our ability to record it depends on several things.
1) The distance of the star to the axis of rotation. (determines the size of
the circle)
2) The distance from the camera to the star being multi-magnitudes further
than the baseline of the camera from the axis of rotation. Far enough to
consider the baseline zero.
3) The camera must maintain the angle from itself to the axis of rotation in
question during any recording. (If the angle changes during the recording, it
will alter the path recorded)
It is #3 that you are not addressing and/or missing. Think about your tripod
camera 6 months apart. They have rotated about the 23.44 axis and the camera is
on the opposite side of the planet, therefore the angle of the camera has
changed with reguard to the yearly axis, therefore the two pictures taken
cannot be used to create an annual circle.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ja,
Ok this is going to be slow but nessisary.......You have a lot of
misconceptions about alot of things here..i don't think this is going to be
quick nor will it answer all your questions ..i think you are going to have to
start back at square one with the demonstration of rotation and seeing and
understanding fully what and how of the two non equivalent rotations and their
axis are....you are completely confused on this issue ...I need more
information from you to go any further with this..but at this point you do not
understand / see the two non equivalent axis of rotation demanded by MS that
fact is not even in dispute by MS...... I inserted some comments i need see
your response before i can move on with the proof or anything else for that
matter....
Allen,
I think what you are missing from my general arguement, is that yes, there
are two separate axis of rotation, that, if treated equally, would each produce
a different star trail for any particular star. But they are not treated
equally with the pictures that have been taken,..why/ how are they not equal in
terms of a rotaion and axis?..thats all the matters even HC cannot deny that
..I dont even understand your reasoning in why or how you think that statment
is valid?....MS does not think they are eqivilent. so why/ how do you?...I
agree, they are equal in terms of rotaion and axis, but, The recording of such
by a stationary camera is not equal in both cases..... because in the nightly
trail case, the camera's angle to the nightly axis remains the same....but in
the recording of the yearly trail , the camera's angle to the annual axis is
changing with each snapshot we take, regardless of whether it is 24 hour
spacing or 23 hour 56 minute spacing. If I went out on a
single night and took a single picture every minute for several hours and
overlayed them together, I would get a portion of the nightly star trail (a
partial circle of dots). But if I adjusted the angle of my camera between shots
by the exact same amount each time and then ovelayed the shots together, I
would not get the nightly circle..... I would get either a larger or a smaller
circle depending on the "adjustment" I had made between shots. If my angular
adjustment were just right, I could make each photo have the star in question
in the exact same spot, but I cannot call that proof of the polar axis not
existing, just like I cannot call the lack of a star trail over an anual period
a proof of the annual axis not existing, because the angle of the camera
changes with each shot. therefore we cannot say they have failed to record the
annual star trail. First we must determine what it would look like under the
unequal circumstances they were recorded under.
I do not think you addressed my Logic challange in paragraph 2 below. Please
look at it one more time, because if anybody can cut through some faulty logic,
it's you. The first section you responded to is a statement of my logical
premise and I completely agree with what you said in responce, it just doesn't
have anything to do with the premise. your premise is entirly wrong ..i will
readdress all these below...
The second section you responded to, I spell out the problem, but you do not
actually address it, you state your view of why the helicopter scenario
supports your view, which I may or may not agree with. In the third section, I
present the two mutually exclusive ideas, one of which must be wrong, but your
responce is a re-iteration of your proof. In this logic challenge I am not
challenging your proof's details, I am taking the 2 direct conclusions of your
proof (an annual circle must be created) (the nightly circle is created nightly
and never moves reguardless of the baseline of the earth or the earths orbit)
and the only conclusion you can draw from these two "facts"...... the motion
about two axis is impossible(because the yearly must be traced out by the
nightly, yet it cannot even be done theoretically)... and asking if this motion
is observed in any of the other planets. If it is, then I have shown your proof
to be flawed without talking about the details or
reasoning behind your proof..
Now my drawings are a different matter, there I am challenging the mechanics
behind the Proof. You dont have a proper grasp of HC's mechanics, as per HC,
first of all........... If I have made an error them, please point it out to
me. ..ok pay close attention...
I appreciate your efforts, and I do wish to be back on board, however, the
more I look at it the further I am getting from accepting the Star trails
proof.
It seems to me that the proof, if correct, would not only demolish HC, but
would also demolish the possibility of that type of motion, IE... No planet
could rotate on an axis that is different from it's orbital axis. They most
certainly can and they DO all the time!!!!!That is my point, I'm saying the
proof procludes the possibility..Again look at the diagrams it demonstrates how
every single planet does that very thing. Further MS absolutly demands
this!!!.I agree, but this is my point..You need to go back to and pay close
attention to the diagram of the model there is two axis or roation they are not
equevilent nor do lay on the same angle to each other, nor are they dependent
upon each other.........If the nightly circle does not move through the sky
during the year, Right! how can it trace out a larger circle? It does not! But
it must trace it out on a different planet since you say it moves with the same
motion we are considering....the nightly path does not trace
out a larger circle...the annual path traces out diferent size circles but you
are confusing the nightly path and the annual path they are not the same thing
nor are they in the same dircetion....I am not confused about them, everything
I am talking about is in how you record them. If I understand your position,
you would agree with the following: "one can observe the nightly and the yearly
from overlaying 365 nightly recordings (or 12 taken monthly). If that statement
is true then the nightly must trace out the yearly. But since it does not, then
the annual axis is false." But any analysis of where the position of a nightly
circle is (no matter what planet or scenario as long as the distance to the
star is multi-magnitues further than the baseline) will show the circle to
always be in exactly the same place. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.
Either the motion is immpossible or the ability to see the annual circles from
the method of viewing the nightly is false. You
are confusing the nightly roation with any/every other roational path..the
nightly path is one path that only exist due to the roation about that
particular axis. That path will never cange nor will the size of that path
becuse the stars distance from that axis never changes...The annual path is a
path due to a differnt axis of roation..and that path will never change
either...DONT CONFUSE THE NIGHTLY PATH AND THE ANNUAL PATH...they are not the
same ONE DOES NOT AFFECT THE OTHER........... The nightly cirlce does not trace
out a larger circle or move through the sky during the year..?... it is always
in the same position WITH THE SAME SIZE! But the proof of the Nightly circle
alone (anybodys proof) shows that the nightly circle will always be in the
exact same place, exactly Right ....you will allways see them annualy or
nightly cause it is a photo grapgh of the same thing taken at differnt times
thats all. the axis itself starys the same if the axis does not change then
the rotation will not change...it will always be in the same place doing the
exact same thing it always has.....rotating around that axis..but we are not
talking about that axis we are talking about a completly differnt axis that
even by HC must exist!...... so the motion must not be possible.
I stop here there is no point in me going any futher untill you get the whole
why/ how 2 differnt no equivilent axis and 2 rotations thing down.....
But since other planets move with that motion (or am I wrong), it must be
possible and therfore something is wrong with the proof. Break that logic
Allen! ;-)
The nigtly star trails will all ways be visable year around and every night
it is the exact same photo graph of the exact same thing.....However...it is
the stars distance from the/ any axis of rotation that determines the size of
the startrail..this is true of the nightly as well. polaris is close to the
axis of nightly rotaion and thus wil have a small circle where other stars that
are further from the nightl axis will have larger star trails....Now..there is
another axis of rotaion that takes place over a year ( not just a helicopter
blade (stars) rotation but now the whole helicopter starts to move in circles
[about the sun]) since polaris is further from that axis or rotaion polaris
will produce a larger star trail...it must becuse it is the distance of a star
from the axis that determins the size of star trails even in the nightly ...the
reason polaris is now further from the other axis of rotaion is becuse of the
angle of the axis not the stright line( base
line) distance)..a axis sitting on a differnt angle cannot have all the same
stars as another axis that is facing a differnt direction...it is the stars
distance from the axis that determines the star trails size, if you have two
differnt axis facing in different directions then the stars cannot be the same
distance from both axis at the same time. thus, since HC has two axis of
rotation in differnt directions and the stars cannot all be the same distance
away from any axis of rotataion all at the same time each star has two diferent
paths of two differnt sizes becuse each star is closer to one axis and further
from the other.....
Now, the above was just a thought that occured to me while I was getting the
new drawings ready that you asked for. Hopefully these are easier to look at
and, since there are only 3, less confusing and time consuming. The first is
about the nighty star trail and the camera, the second and third are about the
annual star trail and the camera and why the annual does not work just like the
nightly.
JA....
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dr. Jones, My replies in red,
I do not understand your drawings. You have not changed the rotation axis
from one scenario to the other, so the box is just as far away from the axis in
both cases. Correct, but does not matter. What I changed was the way the camera
moves around the axis, to demontrate the difference between a camera recording
nightly trails and a camera recording annual trails.
In diagrams 1, 2 and 3, your camera should not be diverging onto the axis, but
be parallel with it. As Allen has said, it does not matter what angle the
camera is pointed at, as long as you leave it still, it will record a star
trail. The difference between different camera angles will determine where the
axis is in the picture.
Just like you have in 4, 5 and 6, but here you have not changed the axis! If
you change the axis so as to point towards the box and make the rotor blades
orthogonal to that axis, then what is the difference between the mechanism of
1, 2 and 3, from 4, 5 and 6? I believe I would still record the same event,
just the center of rotation would appear in a different place on the film. The
difference between the two (1,2,3 & 4,5,6)(I wish I had thought to name these
better) is the difference between the stationary camera rotating with the axis
which will record a star trail and the not stationary camera rotating against
the axis which will not record a star trail.
Perhaps you could redo the diagrams and see. I'll see what I can do, to make it
clearer.
Allen,
Allow me to demonstrate. Actually, your mention of the helicopter is what got
my confused questioning to gel into something I could better understand, so I
have used the helicopter as my device. I found this much easier to visualize
and draw the motions. The Helicopters body will represent whatever axis we are
considering. The box on the ground beside the helicopter is any star you want
to consider a star trail for. The rotor is either the baseline of earths radius
or its orbit depending on whether you are talking about the nightly or annual
trail. The Camera on the end of the rotor the camera sitting on a tripod
anywhere on the earth.
Drawings 1, 2, 3 are of the setup of my system to simulate the nightly star
circle. The only difference between 1,2&3 is that I am increasing the length of
the rotor axis, so that you can see where the circle produced is heading as the
distance begins to negate the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7 shows the
positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 9 shows the
results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one revolution in
each of the three drawings). The circle is progressively moving to center on
the axis of rotation. Exactly what we see in the sky and what your model
predicts.
Drawings 4, 5, 6 are of the setup of my system to simulate the annual star
circle. The only difference between 4,5&6 is that I am increasing the length of
the rotor axis, so that you can see where the circle produced is heading as the
distance becomes more important than the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7
shows the positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 8
shows the results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one
revolution in each of the three drawings). Both circles (the axis circle and
the box circle) are decreasing in size and will diapear into a dot with enough
distance. Exactly what we see in the sky, but not what you are predicting.
So what is different in my model to yours? If your camera takes pictures 24
hours apart, you are not taking into consideration that the camera has not
rotated with the axis of rotation you are trying to record, and as my model
shows, that is all the difference needed to make the annual trails disapear.
This is not a proof of HC, only a disproof of the disproof, which are not the
same.
JA...
---------------------------------
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at
www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
