[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Regner,
You realy need to read my post.
Your diagram in no way reprents what i'm looking for..!?
Your figures 1 &2 I dont have but i suplied the HC model..and the
translational motion of the orbit
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:09:56 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
Allen Daves,
Will you please READ what I write, instead of thinking that YOU know what
I write BEFORE you read it!
You saw the figure and concluded that I'm out with the fairies.
For crying out loud - I wrote very clearly that it IS a fabrication by
me, and it does NOT correspond to the real world!
It does, however, correspond to what you are looking for.
THE FIGURE I SENT IS CALLED FIG. 3.
FIGURES 1 AND 2 ARE STILL THE ONES FROM MY INITIAL POST.
PLEASE, READ AND THEN REPLY.
You are really taxing my patience, Allen!
- Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Regner,
>
> Me in blue....Im glad you stoped long enough to respond...now stop long
> enouph to consider what you just stated and your diagram.
>
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> > 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
> >
> I believe I have apologized for that elsewhere already.
>
> > ..many of your points are either moot or not in question....
> >
> >From what you write below, I'm afraid you are wrong on that account.
>
> > Regner Trampedach 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's just the explanation of what the figure shows - nothing else!
> I am glad that you couldn't find anything new in that.
>
> > > 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....
> > >
> If you had ever bothered to look at the sky...
>
>
> LOL.........Yes,....I have bothered to look at the sky thanks.....
>
> > 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!
> > >
> Now, this is the important part - I am capitalizing it, so it doesn't get
> lost in this long post.
> ============================================================================
> I JUST SHOWED THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE SPIN AXIS (ROTATION = SPIN).
> THE AXIS OF THE DAILY ROTATION. THIS AXIS POINTS TO THE EQUATORIAL NORTH
> AND SOUTH POLES. THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> TRANSLATIONAL AND ROTATIONAL MOVEMENTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.
> THERE IS NO WAY OF HAVING A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT BEHAVE/SEEM/LOOK LIKE
> A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS.
>
>
> Regner you must be joking!... I have attached some diagrams for you they
> ...You need to study them carefully because your explaining is
> 1 a outright fabrication that is not consistent with HC claims....& yes i
> know what im talking about..
> 2. Take your diagram of yours and submit it to NASA..they will laugh you
> right out the door...who do you think you are talking too here....?
> 3.Your diagram only shows a axis of rotation on the north celestial pole
> but to do that you having facing diametrically different directions at
> different times of the year!?......your diagram dose not even show the
> ecliptic axis. If what you put forward in your diagram were even true, where
> the celestial pole ( nightly axis of rotation) moved around the earth with
> the earth, If that took place in reality, then over the course of a year that
> axis would be facing in diametrically different directions...!!!! Look at
> your own diagram, for crying out loud, its absurd! Further, each star would
> have different relational distances to the axis and produce different size
> star trials year around.!?
>
> .......Although, you may understand "some astronomy" you have absolutely no
> understanding of the mechanics involved here!...The distance of the star from
> the axis of rotation is what determines the size of any star
> trails...period!..Since you have the axis in different directions at
> different times of the year (north & or south) the sizes would change
> constantly, because both poles cannot face the same direction in the sky at
> the same time and still shift the direction they face in..!@?. If you had
> ever bothered to model such an absurdity you would see that such large
> distance to the stars makes what you suggest impossible and is easily
> demonstrated!?..Try to modle that here on earth using the real stars...( It
> being so much smaller then you cant argue on grounds of great distance &
> scale) .. . The nightly cannot mask the annual because the axis lay in
> different directions over the course of any single year......because they lay
> on different angels to each
> other..............
>
> I think i understand why this might be so difficult for you...
>
> You are looking at it backwards. It is the observations that contradict
> your position. Observations cannot contradict what i demonstrate without
> assuming in effect " since we know the earth is going around the sun and we
> dont observe the rotation thus we must not be able to view the secondary
> rotation"....Your statements are simply your positions that assume the very
> thing in question as proof for itself!?
> If the motions existed as per the HC model then there is by definition a
> rotational condition that exist and must/ would manifest itself in a photo
> graphic plate. Your diagram only creates problems for you. It does not
> addresses the problems. The fact that no such condition manifest itself does
> not prove that im wrong, it proves your position is wrong. You have the cart
> before the horse! The mechanics and observations come first then the
> conclusions not your conclusions then assume how the mechanics must manifest
> themselfs... For crying out loud you can falsefy everything you just put
> forward if you just bothered to model it. there is no way to model the
> condition you diagram..it is physicaly imposible to demonstrate!
>
> You see Regener, that was and is the whole point of my #1 Your position for
> it to be valid must start with the assumption that HC conclusion is true
> first. You do so without realy understanding the underlying assumptions that
> it is built upon. If you did understand the assumptions you would see real
> quick the underlying assumptions are not only in error but they must assume
> the conclusion HC first and then try to interpret the data, even though the
> data contradicts that position.
>
>
> I'm gona stop here because everything else that follows is just more
> conclusions based on false premises put forward in your diagram........
>
>
.other.============================================================================
>
> > ...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..
> > >
> Good.
> But you never-the-less disagrees.
> I am saying that Point 2) is the only thing that changes during the year
> (apart from the, for this matter, inconsequential parallaxes to stars,
> movements of planets, precise distance to the Sun, etc., etc.). That means
> THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS.
> THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
>
> > > what has this got to do with what we are talking about?.....
> > >
> See above. And besides, I have no way of knowing what parts of science
> the various contributors in this discussion agrees on or knows about.
> I was trying to be clear and avoid misunderstandings.
>
> > > 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.....
> >
> Thank you.
>
> > 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....
> > >
>
> 1a) I am not redefining spin - look it up in a dictionary.
> 1b) Rotation = spin.
> Saying that the Earth is "in a rotational condition" seems an overly
> complicated way of saying that the Earth rotates.
> In science we try not to make things more complicated than they are.
> 1c) The yearly motion of the Earth through its orbit is not a rotation.
> THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> THERE IS NO WAY OF HAVING A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT BEHAVE/SEEM/LOOK LIKE
> A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> 1d) An elliptic orbit is the accurate term. It makes no difference for
> the argument, and it definitely doesn't hurt the case for HC.
> I strive to be precise, concise and avoid misunderstandings
> - that's why I mentioned it.
>
> > > 2.. The supposed ellipse wobble you are referring to is only ~3% see
> > > attached diagram ..this fact only complicates not explains your position
> > >
> See 1d) above.
>
> > > ,,,the greater the out of round it is the larger not smaller effect it
> > > would have
> > >
> How could anyone think otherwise?!?!
>
> > > ...and a camera on a elliptical board looking at Polaris or any other
> star
> > > for that matter demonstrates this..
> > >
> I don't quite see what you are referring to here...
>
> > > 3. If the distance of the earths 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
> > >
> Any of the pole points are conceptual, and obviously not only at a large
> distance, but at infinity. Therefore, by definition, the positions of any of
> the poles does not change with time, as the Earth revolves around the Sun.
>
> > > by your own admission,
> > >
> There is nothing to hide, therefore nothing to admit.
> You are ascribing a lot of statements and motives to me, that are not mine.
> I would kindly ask you to refrain from doing so in the future.
>
> > > the stars are too far away.......This is what you so
> > > eloquently stated in your point #1..which no one is arguing with...
> > >
> Thank you.
>
> > > if it was
> > > able to affect what we see it would only complicate not explain your
> > > dilemma.
> > >
> I do not see that I have a 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.
> > >
> An epicycle is one circle on another circle - that is a very bad
> approximation
> to an ellipse.
>
> > > ( 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...
> > >
> You can of course add as many epicycles as you want, and as you approach an
> infinite number of epicycle you can approach an ellipse.
> I have no idea why that is interesting when ellipses are so simple and easy
> to calculate, as well as being the exact solution to the physical problem,
> and being the orbits that are actually observed.
>
> Just a quote to show the scale of my incomprehension of the reason for your
> statement:
> "By this [13th century] time each planet had been provided with from 40 to
> 60
> epicycles to represent after a fashion its complex movement among the stars.
> Amazed at the difficulty of the project, Alfonso is credited with the remark
> that had he been present at the Creation he might have given excellent
> advice."
>
> From: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968, vol. 2, p. 645. This is identified as
> the highest number in Owen Gingerich, "Alfonso X as a Patron of Astronomy,"
> in The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York: American
> Institute of Physics, 1993), p. 125.
>
> As it turned out, your Creator did a much more beautiful job, and actually
> had the planets travel along elliptical orbits.
>
> > > ...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 earths 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.
> > >
> I will address your figures by number, from above.
> Fig. 1: I explicitly avoided your top ellipse in my Fig. 2, because it is
> misleading, as you seem to agree on. Otherwise they are the same.
> Figs. 2-3: Beautiful illustrations of Earth's daily rotation around the
> equatorial axis, and translational movement along the yearly orbit.
> Fig. 4: An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.
> You wrote:
> "[sic]even [sic]is scale [sic]were a factor this experiment
> demonstrates an effect that is many several thousands of orders
> of magnitude smaller..."
> The only way I can interpret that is that your experiment demonstrates
> an effect that is a phantazillion times smaller than the parallax
> effect. I don't think you'll find funding for that. And I don't think
> that's what you mean, but there is no other way of interpreting what
> you wrote.
>
> Another important part that I would like you not to miss:
> ============================================================================
> WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS WHAT i HAVE SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED FIGURE.
> LET ME CALL IT FIG. 3.
> FIG. 3 SHOWS THE EARTH AT FOUR INSTANCES IN ITS ORBIT AROUND THE SUN.
> THE DOTTED LINES SHOW THE ECLIPTIC AXIS POINTING TOWARDS THE ECLIPTIC POLES.
> IF YOU WANT ROTATION AROUND THAT AXIS, THEN YOU WILL HAVE A YEARLY
> PRECESSION
> OF THE DAILY ROTATION AXIS AS SHOWN BY THE DASHED LINES.
> THIS IS NOT OBSERVED!
> THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> TRANSLATIONAL AND ROTATIONAL MOVEMENTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.
> THERE IS NO WAY OF HAVING A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT BEHAVE/SEEM/LOOK LIKE
> A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS.
> FIG. 3 IS WRONG.
> FIG. 3 IS A FABRICATION BY ME TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
> FIG. 3 DOES NOT AGREE WITH OBSERVATIONS.
> FIG. 1 DOES AGREE WITH OBSERVATIONS (see original post).
> ============================================================================
>
> > 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...!?
> > >
> Try for once, to read what I write.
> Of course precession can be measured. We wouldn't be able to find a
> particular
> star in our telescopes if we didn't account for precession. Since precession
> had been brought up earlier in the discussion, and there had been a lot of
> confusion about, I thought I would explain it here.
> Precession doesn't have any bearing on the daily and yearly paths of stars
> across the sky. It is however, yet another problem for your geocentric view,
> as I'll come back to.
>
> You should really consider writing shorter, more concise, precise and
> to-the-point posts - then it would also be easier to proof-read. It took
> me far too long to get through this, and decipher what you meant, as
> opposed to what you wrote. Your argument could easily have fitted in one
> or two paragraphs and would have been a lot clearer for it - and my replies
> would be a lot shorter too.
> Thanks, though, for spending the time writing this reply to my,
> admittedly lengthy, initial post.
>
> Regards,
>
> Regner Trampedach
>
>
> P.S. I have deleted the rest of my post in this reply, since you, very
> reasonably, had no comments there.
>
>
>
Other related posts:
