[geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:24:48 -0800 (PST)
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Regner claims there is
no rotataion aound the sun. However, when you show him a camera orentied
radialy to an axis (sun) on 24 hour intervals over the course of one orbit of
that axis (a year) regurdless of the path it took to get there, he claims it
is called a rotation...."it's that simple".....LOL
Allen you are refusing to accept the definition of Rotation I posted days ago.
What has that got to do with the fact that I accept Regners defintion for the
sake of argument but he uses his defintion inconsitently? Which showed the
relationships between translation, rotation and spin.. rotation and spin are
not synonomous. You are misguided.. both are simply "a change in orientation
to a frame of reference" the only differnec if any is how much of a change 360o
or somthing less & or more......However, the key question is "what is your
frame of reference?". In relitivity there is no distinction, all ref frames
are equal. In GC there is only one absolute Real reference frame. All real
motion and thus changes to orientation get there meaning/ relevance from that
absolute ref frame. If you bothered to read my post a look at the diagram i
show you that a path of travel need not be "a rotation" and yet still produce
rotational effects. A camera on the moon can record a
rotational effect without having real rotation, becsue there is a differenc
ebetween real and relitive motion. if the camera is looking at the stars then
it is only recording relitive motion. if on the other hand it is looking at the
earth it will not record any rotaion because the earth is the absolute
reference frame and no real rotaion exist!..Again the difference is the frame
of reference you choose to look at. In any case though there is a difference.
In the case of the earth if you look at the earth at 23h 56 min there is only
translation, however if you look at it on 24h intervals there is net rotational
effect. The difference is the frame of reference you use. That is the
fundamental question and the key issue in GC v HC. However for all these
discussion im assuming HC's constructs to disprove HC. I am not trying to use
GC concepts to disprove HC anymore then HC concepts prove or disprove GC.. stay
focused and don?t get sidetrack.
You also refuse to answer the hard questions that will test your perceptions
when confronted with an illusion. In fact you have avoided every one which
suggests you did not or can not read it.
e g Does the moon have a spin? If so, why don't we see it spinning? Your
question can only be answered within model you accept..( Relative v absolute
motion) .. does your question assume Absolute motion or only relative motion?
There is a fundamental difference between Absolute and relative motion.. In a
relativistic frame work which is what we are addressing here in HC yes it
"rotates". In Absolute motion, kinematically it can't rotate without something
to rotate (change orientation to) against!
Philip.
Other related posts:
