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

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:48:14 +1000

```Thanks Regner.. I saw my error when I got my return post.. Only one beer too..
I'll think on this tonight..

Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......

> 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.
>
You are just pointing out the difference between sidereal days and tropical
days. I have tried to do that myself, and do obviously not object to it.
Let's simplify things a bit. Put a camera on a post, and keep it fixed
there for a year.
a) Take a picture every sidereal (star) day.
Result: You'll see no change in the stars position (but the Sun will
come up for half a year and make it a bit harder).
b) Take a picture every tropical (Solar) day.
Result: Star trails around the celestial poles - exactly as happens
during a single day - except they will all be night-time pictures
(provided you started at night...).

> 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?
>
Let's seperate the two parts of the motion here.

a) Don't spin the globe on its axis of daily rotation.
Do spin the wheel acting as the Earth's orbit around the Sun,
and make sure the axis of daily rotation is kept in the
same direction with respect to your "lab".
The globe will not change its orientation during the "year".
This is a translational movement.
=================================
This happens to Earth, once a year.

b) Keep the orbital wheel fixed.
Spin the globe on its axis of daily rotation.
That's the rotational movement.
===============================
It happens to Earth, once a day.

c) Combine the two, and you have a model of the Earth's movement in
the Solar system.

The translational movement, is around the ecliptic axis, but it is
NOT a rotation, since a rotation would change the orientation of the Earth.
In HC there is no rotation around the ecliptic axis, only translation.

d) If there was rotation around the ecliptic axis, then there would be
a yearly precession of the axis of daily rotation, as shown in my
corrected Fig. 3.

It is important to distinguish correctly between rotation and translation,
since the former changes the orientation of the object, and the latter
does not.

Kind regards,

Regner

> 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...
>
>     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..?.
>
>         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
>             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
>

--
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

```