[geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......

Philip from here ............We must not get distracted from the important 
criteria, that with the scale of observation being 430 light years as 13 
kilometers, and the two axels being within a point less than 0.5mm
the axis and stars are tied  to each other...


Absolutely.. As if they were tied together, in fact on my diagram they were a 
single point. Geometrically they can be treated as a single point at the 
23Degrees point between the axes. bisecting each other there.  I cannot 
understand why Regner wants to put a magnifying glass on this point when we are 
working this scale, which is only 430 light years. ..  1 AU   2 AU  and R  can 
all be considered as equivalent. 

IN HC
It does not matter where you are on the earths orbit around the sun, at any 
time of the year, a star will always be in the same spot , shifting only due to 
the earth rotation. Or any other the camera makes. 

The point I'm asking to make is this..  This observation will be identical, for 
either system.. Annual rotation or daily, for a fixed camera. If you counter 
rotate the camera on the earth to NEUTRALISE the earths rotation,(thats a 
sideral rotation) it will stop the stars,  then you will see the exact same 
trail as the daily one over a year, because despite Regners assertions to the 
contrary, a spot/camera  if fixed on a rim, which it is on the planet, will 
make a full turn over one year. Thats if HC is true. 

The inclination angle makes no difference..  I have answered Regners objection 
earlier, to another but will do so more specifically tomorrow. in simple turns 
the inclination of the axis is fixed . This has no relationship to the surface 
of the earths rotation. It can be a solar day increment or a combined increment 
of daily and orbital translation, without any precessional influence at all. 

Regner used a coffee cup.. Lets use a school globe which is enclined and on 
bearings. Put it on a turntable and seize the bearings.  With one turn of the 
turntable the globe will make one spin rotation relative to space. there will 
be no precessional force on the enclined axis..  Why should there be? 

Philip. 
Philip 

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:02 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......


  Philip from here ............We must not get distracted from the important 
criteria, that with the scale of observation being 430 light years as 13 
kilometers, and the two axels being within a point less than 0.5mm
  the axis and stars are tied  to each other...

  philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Does anybody other than allen think I said anything to do with stars..other 
than Polaris, "how in the world do you come up with stars that are only  .5mm 
distance across..? "   read it again Allen.. 

    We must not get distracted from the important criteria, that with the scale 
of observation being 430 light years as 13 kilometers, and the two axels being 
within a point less than 0.5mm such must be allowed to be considered as two 
spins around the same centre with different axes. That 2AU and R  must be 
allowed as equivalent. 

    Philip. 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Allen Daves 
      To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:32 AM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......


      Philip,

      If you look ain any direction and then look in another direction that is 
23.44 degrees offset from the first ..how in the world do you come up with 
stars that are only  .5mm distance across..? ... Philip think about what you 
are saying....The sun moves back and forth across the sky 23 
degrees......................is that only .5mm accros?...........distnace is 
irrelevant any star at any distance will still have the same 23 of arc that the 
sun or any other objects does in the sky...23 degrees is 23 degrees. In fact, 
the further the distance away to the star the further the star is away from 
that axis..?. 

      philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        Allen as usual you put in too many words for anybody to glean what you 
are saying.. 

        We must distinguish the difference between rotation of the inclination, 
(that would be a precession which does not interest us here) and the actual 
physical rotation of the body itself. 

        Take a basic example, 
        See my post using a wheel with a dot on its rim. If the dot is the 
planet with a fixed inclined angle It is possible for it to turn one spin per 
orbit whilst maintaining the correct enclined orientation. With these periods, 
the sun would see the same face of the world, for the whole year, except that 
there would be a seasonal change of view N -S  .. That is the first spin, an 
annual spin that Neville expects us to see. 

        On top of that the world has a second spin daily so that the world can 
get barbecued evenly.. 

        Its that simple. 

        We must not get distracted from the important criteria, that with the 
scale of observation being 430 light years as 13 kilometers, and the two axels 
being within a point less than 0.5mm such must be allowed to be considered as 
two spins around the same centre with different axes. That 2AU and R  must be 
allowed as equivalent. 

        Philip. 
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
          To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
          Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:15 AM
          Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......


          Translational motion is also referred to as "sliding" or "rolling" 
motion (to change position without rotation). see attached diagram .....In HC 
the nightly axis of rotation or the celestial pole the axis translates around 
the orbit of the earth. This is to say that the axis always faces the same 
direction ..I¢ll even use Paul¢s diagram to show it ( i expounded upon it) ( i 
will reinvent the wheel latter) The celestial pole does not rotate around the 
ecliptic axis as Regner showed in his diagram..!? Although I agree (as per 
HC/AC) the celestial axis "translates"/ ("slides" to keep looking in the same 
direction of the sky) around the ecliptic axis annually. ( if faces that same 
direction at the same angle, it does not rotate as Regner showed it to, and if 
it did that would even further frustrate any and all attempts to explain it) On 
24 hour intervals the camera is inline with the spokes on a bicycle running 
from the night side of the earth to the sun. On 24 hour intervals ( midnight) 
over the course of a year the camera is in it¢s radial position, not its 
"translated position".( Every 23 h 56 min the camera would be in its translated 
position.) A radial position over the course of the period of any orbit cause a 
net effect of a rotation of the film and camera around the ecliptic axis in the 
same way that the camera would nightly. See Paul¢s diagram attached....... 
Notice, that on 24 hour intervals regaudell of the translated conditon of the 
celestial axis the observer is in a radial position with the spokes extending 
out from the sun to the observer, over the cours of a year the fixed camera 
will have rotated around the ecliptic axis. The rotational condition cannot be 
avoided and thus cannot be negated observably.



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:42:44 AM
          Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?


          Regner, Paul and all,

          You cannot have "translational motion" (or any motion for that 
matter) where every 24 hours  lined up as a spoke on a wheel (midnight) at the 
same point on earth while in a orbit around the sun and not have a rotational 
condition for the fixed observer/photo plate.....That is "TECHNICALLY" called a 
"physical absurdity".!?. Nor can It even be modeled in reality  
period!......Even if his diagram was true, which it was not even close...


          Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
            Regner T
            From Regner Trampedach Tue Nov 13 14:47:09 2007
            Thank you for your illustration EarthOrbit2.gif (9KB). It awaits 
Allen's confirmation of course, but assuming this is forthcoming, it explains 
what he was saying -- which was beyond my ability to comprehend. Well done!
            Oops! While writing this, another saga arrived -- it appears Allen 
is withholding his confirmation! I got the impression he didn't read all the 
stuff in capitals but I may be wrong.
            You state (in capitals on a line by itself) THERE IS NO ROTATION 
AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS. I take it this is a technically correct statement 
which does not rule out translational motion about this axis? And of course 
revolution about this axis would also be incorrect -- that motion is about the 
Sun. Comments/corrections?
            Paul D


--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail 
now. 





----------------------------------------------------------------------

          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
          Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1127 - Release Date: 
12/11/2007 9:19 PM




--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
      Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 
13/11/2007 11:09 AM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 13/11/2007 
11:09 AM

Other related posts: