[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Regner,
Im glad you have had the time to finaly join us..I address your "points" in
blue
I attached some diagrams because it is obvious you have not had a change to
keep up with our discussions ..many of your points are either moot or not in
question....
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As a warm up, I'll try to throw a little light on what happens to our
view of the sky during a year, as seen from the heliocentric viewpoint.
Several people have raised a point that Earth should be spinning around
two sets of poles if the heliocentric view is correct and the observations
therefore blatantly contradicts this view. This is not correct.
I have included two figures illustrating my points and there is a little
glossary at the bottom. Sorry for the long post, but I hope you will find
it precise, concise and to the point, never-the-less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 1: The Earth at the four seasons.
To the left: Northern summer solstice/Southern winter solstice,
nearest: Northern autumnal equinox/Southern vernal equinox,
to the right: Northern winter solstice/Southern summer solstice,
and farthest: Northern vernal equinox/Southern autumnal equinox.
This figure is far out of proportion, for clarity - that is the sizes of
the Sun, the Earth and the Earth's orbit, are not to scale (see Fig. 2 for
the correct relative proportions). The spin axis, however, is at the correct
angle and all the conclusions about the sky as seen from Earth are unchanged
This states the HC position, but it explains nothing. It is however
entirely inaccurate and falsifiable. In fact if you had ever bothered to model
what you are suggesting here you would you would have seen that this has
already been falsified !?...........it is about rotation on the ecliptic axis
not the celestial axis....
Point 1)
We see that the four instances of Earth are an integer number of sidereal
days apart, because the Earth is facing the same way. Imagine you are a
star. Juan in Spain is looking at you. As you are sitting about 30cm from
the monitor, Juan is going to see you at slightly different positions in the
sky, during the year - that is what we call parallax. You, as the star, have
to look in slightly different directions to see Juan in Spain. The largest
difference will be between the leftmost and the rightmost part of the orbit
- that is, half a year apart. Now, on my screen, the Earth orbit in that
figure is about 16 cm - that corresponds to you (the star) being only 2 AU
away - that is still well inside the Solar system. The closest star is more
than 100,000 times further away. If you move a mere 10 times further away
from the screen (3 m) you notice that the angular size of the Earth orbit in
the figure is a lot smaller. 10,000 times further away, and you won't be able
to distinguish between the left and the right side of the orbit (or see your
monitor, for that matter...).
Conclusion: Juan will see all the stars in the same place, throughout the
year,The nightly rotational effect (nightly star trails) will be in the same
place, all year long because the size of the earths orbit will not have an
effect on the position of the nightly since the earths tilt is in the same
direction year around. You will see the same distance of the stars away from
that (nightly) rotational axis all year around..YES.....this is not in
question.....Your point here is either a statment of your postion or a moot
stament. It does not address the mechanics under discussion at all. In fact we
have already covered this issue with the size of the earth's orbital diameter/
barrycenter around the sun is irrelevant! That fact holds true for the nightly
as well as the annual axis...Again It is not the issue under consideration.. we
are looking at the rotational condition itself, not the size/shape of the
rotations... size and shape of the rotations eliptical or perfect circles does
not negate the observable affect of a rotational condition Period!
if there is an integer (whole) number of sidereal days between his
observations.
Point 2)
The thing that will change, is whether he can see you at all. at the
leftmost and farthest away (northern spring and summer), Juan will not be
able to see you because it is daytime. During the year, the solar time of
the day, corresponding to a given sidereal time, will go through 24 hours.
The sidereal time of day is the same in all four instances in Fig. 1, but
the Solar time for Juan is (something like) 8am, 2am, 8pm and 2pm, going
from Summer, Fall, Winter to Spring in Fig. 1.
This a stament about the effects of 24 hour days on sidereal
time.............No body in disagrement with this..what has this got to do with
what we are talking about?..... again, I will attach some diagrams for you
because it is obvious to me that you have not had a chance to keep up with
where we are in all this.....
Point 3)
The orbit around the Sun is not a spin, but a translational movement.
In other words, the spin axis (with the Earth attached) is moved around in
the orbit, without changing the direction of the spin axis.
It would be very hard to explain, physically, a yearly wobble of the Earth's
spin axis of +/-23 degrees.
Conclusion: There is only one spin axis of Earth and observations of
far-away stars completely agree with the heliocentric picture. Closer stars,
on the other hand, have measurable parallaxes and many of those also move
perceptibly (not to the naked eye) with respect to the Sun.
1.your conclusion is based on a false premise ...The earth not mater how
you wish to define "spin" is still however by definition in a rotational
condition even if in a wobble or out of round rotation, an ellipse does not
help you it hurts your case....
2.. The supposed ellipse wobble you are referring to is only ~3% see attached
diagram ..this fact only complicates not explains your position ,,,the greater
the out of round it is the larger not smaller effect it would have and a camera
on a elliptical board looking at Polaris or any other star for that matter
demonstrates this..
3. If the distance of the earth?s orbit around the sun has not effect on what
we observe then we can draw the NEP (axis) anywhere on earth's orbit at any
time during its orbit and doing so would not change the view of the NEP by your
own admission, the stars are too far away.......This is what you so eloquently
stated in your point #1..which no one is arguing with...if it was able to
affect what we see it would only complicate not explain your dilemma. I draw
circle paths to give you the best possible chance to explain ..but Hey ok you
want to highlight the ellipse, lets do that.
4. Any ellipse is mathematically equivalent to a epicycle. ( circle on a
circle on a circle etc..) need mathematical proof?..... just ask........ and
any ellipse can be drawn with the proper number of circles... but since we have
already agreed in principle that the real location of the axis of earth's orbit
as long as it lays within the diameter of earth?s orbit has no effect because
stars are so far away.
5. You can take the experiment i attached here as well and offset the large
disk by 3% and it will still demonstrate the same rotational effect...in fact
the larger the ellipse say 5 or even 6% will just exacerbate the issues not
make it all "go away"
The fact that there is elliptical orbit dose not and would change the
"rotational condition" of stars from the axis wobbling or not. Even if it were
larger for the very reasons you give. Namely the stars are too far away to have
an effect on the size/ shape of the star trails for any axis/ view of the NEP
from any point on the earth's orbit. (Again see attached diagrams)..a simple
experiment with a camera on a circular table out of perfect round by 3% will
still demonstrate this effect.. So how you think explains anything is quite
curious except perhaps you have never actually attempted to model what you are
trying to explain......I'm quite suppressed you would even attempt to make that
argument ..but oh well if you want to die on that hill...lets go for it.
Point 4)
Precession happens on a timescale of about 26,000 years! It is the Earth's
spin axis that rotates around the ecliptic N/S-poles. This has no perceptible
consequences for the layman (except that your horoscope is about 1 month
off, since they were invented about 2,000 years ago...) - astronomers of
course need to know where to point their telescopes with high precision and
need to account for Precession.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this precession exist.....you state
in this very point it has no perceptible consequences ..so how is this
relevant....beside even if it were true you can't demonstrate it except in
theory ..ahh but the theory is what is at question here ..ummmm ....so now you
are evoking theoretical imaginary motions that have "no consequence" on what we
observe for why we observe it...!?
Fig. 1 was found on the web at
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/Home/Science/Earth-Sciences/Atmospheric-Sciences/Climate/Seasons/Seasons-05.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 2: The relative sizes of the Earth's orbit (solid, large ellipse),
the Sun (small circle in the centre). The Moon's orbit would be about 2
pixels in diameter, and the Earth is about 110 times smaller than the Sun -
quite invisible on this scale. I have also plotted a circle of 1 AU, to
compare with the slightly elliptic orbit of the Earth.
Fig. 2 was made by myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glossary
---------
Heliocentric viewpoint only means that the Sun is the centre of our Solar
system - not of the whole Universe!
A sidereal day is the time it takes the Earth to spin once around, to the
same location of the stars. 23h56m04s - the stellar day.
A tropical day is the time it takes the Earth to spin once around, to the
same location of the Sun. 24h00m00s - the Solar day.
1 Astronomical Unit (AU) is the mean Earth-Sun distance.
Other related posts:
