[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:17:53 +1000
"And I conceded that it was mechanically possible for an orbital motion to have
no spin due to that motion." I said it
Its a pity all of us have not a toy gyroscope to play with..
Proof.
Place a high rev motor horizontally shaft pointing North on a vertical bearing
at the edge of a turntable. (this could be at 24degrees off vertical, same
difference, but why make it hard.) Its on a small turntable , at the edge of a
big turntable . frictionless bearings of course.
Spin the motor up to exactly 15,002 rpm..
Now turn the turntable one complete revolution .
an optical counter will confirm that the 15002 rpm remained unchanged. .
Yet the flywheel inertia of the motor rotor will keep the motor steadily
oriented in one direction always to the North. .
As this motor is translated in space one complete orbit, it will not itself
turn or spin relative to space ... ie relative to an observer above it. A
camera on the top of this motor pointing up will not spin or record any light
trails.
The illusions of relative motions.. The astute observer will be able to see
that this motor does appear to rotate relative to the top of the turntable.
If you were a "turntable person" standing on the turntable you would swear to
God the motor was rotating on its bearing..
Just as many of you Earth people will so swear that the moon is not turning..
but you are all wrong.. Even in the geocentrism situation, the moon would
still have to be spinning, only it would be close to one revolution per day
rather than per 28 days.
Now there is a thought what star trail would you get if you had a camera on the
north pole of the moon, doing its alleged 28 day spin.
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
Philip,
It is a pity that Regner has confused you over the (undisputed)
translation-type motion of the World in the heliocentric model.
Tell me, if this translation is so clear to you now, how is it that we obtain
nightly star trail circles?
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:54:30 +1000
This is no win for HC over GC but,
Since Regner caused me to utilize an old word "translation" in a new
application, it sure makes these descriptions simpler.
Sure enough I have awakened this morning with the certain conviction that
there is only one rotation, and only one axis of rotation. I am a little
embarrassed it took so much unnecessary mental and written wrangling to arrive.
We have already agreed that the 2AU translational movement was far too
small relatively to read any effect due to parallax. (i.e.make trails) . For
there to be an annual increment or circle, we needed and assumed there to be a
spin of the world due to its orbit, in addition to the daily spin. This would
only occur if the orbit was liken to a rigid wheel and the globe rotated inside
a frame that was fixed solidly on the rim And it isn't. There is no applied
force of "rigidity" to insist on it. If it was, then I can see the
precessional force due to the daily rotation. It doesn't happen.
Therefore we must accept the conclusion that we cannot disprove HC simply
because of the absence of an annual star trail. There is no rotational spin
element given to the world in its translation around the sun. The only spin is
the daily sidereal spin. Lets put it differently. There is no physical reason
for this orbital translation to cause a spin.
It is necessary to avoid any misconceptions which the geocentric view
creates that tends to bias our minds.. Both mathmatically and geometrically it
is proven by simple proportion, and it is in accord with what is observed. Lets
draw it.
Under HC.
Fact 1. The planet has a fixed incline to the ecliptic. It always faces
the same direction throughout the orbit.
Fact 2. It has one revolution/spin per sidereal day. and 366 rotations
for a 365 solar day year.
Reqd to prove: That geometrically the world does not need to gain spin due
to its translation around the sun.
For simplicity we will assume that the body "earth" has two sidereal day
spins per orbit of the sun.
For visualisation. let the object be the typical classroom globe, and start
our orbit with the tilted N pole pointing outwards on the enclined axis and the
international date line of the globe is at noon pointing at the sun.
Keeping the tilt always in the same orientation, move the entire unit 180
degrees around its orbital path, and at the same time rotate the globe one full
turn. This is one sidereal day. But note, the date line is now only at
midnight. This is not due to any extra spin of the earth, but merely because
its "frame" has been translated in position relative to the sun. You have to
complete one more complete sideral day whilst returning to the start point to
complete a solar day. Note that the same geometrical relationships occur no
matter which direction of either rotation ,orbit or spin, is taken.
In the real world, one sidereal day or one rotation of the earth is not
going to complete a solar day because the orbital translation moved the world
to another location relative to the sun.
Sorry for the long wind, but I must say in conclusion, the exact same
observations would be made if the world was stationary, and the sun and Stars
rotated the earth in the same angular proportions. I am grateful for the very
good graphic video available in GWW showing the two planetary systems in
action..
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 14/11/2007
4:54 PM
Other related posts:
