[geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:57:54 +1000
The relitive motion of any two bodies can only be visualised from a third
position...The relitive motion of that third position must be taken into
consideration..you cannot just assume your third position is motionless because
what/ where is in motion or not is the question underconsideration. Allen
Thats true Allen, but I did not react to this because there can be no third
position .. period,,,,,, Without a static reference, the observer would not
know if he was rotating.. We say the earth is motionless and not rotating
because of revealed Word, but from a physics viewpoint, this cannot be proven
by any means discovered so far, save aether flow, and that one is so
controversial it won't be accepted by our physicists friends.
My problem with yours was pure geometry triangulation. You cannot triangulate
on a distant object without a base line... and a base line of 190 million
miles in a triangle whose height is 5 light years, IS AN NONEXISTENT BASE LINE
.. THE SIDES OF THE TRIANGLE MIGHT AS WELL BE PARALLEL and on top of each other
as well. .
Sorry I always get caught with the caps lock on.. it shouts when I wasn't.
Phil Mad with madsoft would design an OS with a reversal feature...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
Phil,
The relitive motion of any two bodies can only be visualised
from a third position...The relitive motion of that third position must be
taken into consideration..you cannot just assume your third position is
motionless because what/ where is in motion or not is the question
underconsideration.
--- On Sun, 9/21/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 4:34 PM
Those mathmatical representations mean nothing to me.. !
Well not without some study, and I will not do that.
In our context re the earth orbit of the sun ,
For the full years orbit, the angle of inclination of the
pole, is fixed relative to any nominated axis of the sun. In the following
diagram you see the earth position in every season as the green ball.. the
arrows show the direction of tilt, which is maintained for the full year of
orbit..
That is translation without rotation.
Now if the the orbit was the edge of a fixed disc and the
balls were fixed to this disc and the disc rotated.. the arrows would rotate
always pointing away from the centre. That is translation with rotation
really quite simple without a single sine cos or tan.....
The former is what the HC position claims.. They claim it!
This is consistent with a stationary earth!
If the polar star makes a circle , there can be only one of
two reasons.
(a) The world rotates! or
(b) The stars revolve around the world.
What the scale of distance does is this.
The view will be exactly the same , (save miniscule parallax)
from any place in the solar system, or anywhere on the circumference of the
alleged annual orbit.
Hence I repeat, it is indistinguishable from static earth or
a orbiting earth..The Parallax does not support HC simply because it would be
the same as for a rotating cosmos.. I reccommend a relook at the animations on
GWW's DVD.
HC had to come up with a tilted earth ...they had no
option...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 8:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node106.html
Translational motion versus rotational motion
It should be clear, by now, that there is a strong analogy
between rotational motion and standard translational motion. Indeed, each
physical concept used to analyze rotational motion has its translational
concomitant. Likewise, every law of physics governing rotational motion has a
translational equivalent. The analogies between rotational and translational
motion are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: The analogies between translational and
rotational motion.
Translational motion Rotational motion
Displacement Angular displacement
Velocity Angular velocity
Acceleration Angular acceleration
Mass Moment of inertia
Force Torque
Work Work
Power Power
Kinetic energy Kinetic energy
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 3:41 PM, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought you wer out to prove that movement of the world
around the sun would be detected as a rotation..
Maybe I am jumping ahead.. so bring on your first simple
step and we will go from there. though I feel somehow this was al ready
resolved by Regner.
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:01 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
Just how does scale have anything to do with
rotaional effects?..Demonstrate somthing dont just imagin..... if you take any
camera and rotate it against any object at any distance , at any scale
..including real stars you get rotational effects!..That being absolutly
true...please clarify & explain your objections with somthing real not just
imagined.......
--- On Sat, 9/20/08, Neville Jones
<njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 5:11 PM
Yes, I concur with that. The (alleged/accepted)
distances are the problem.
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:16:59 +1000
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational orbit
No go Allen.. You are not including scale..
HC propose two myths.
One that the earth moves around the sun...
Now if this were the only myth, then your
camera would indeed show the rotation. and you are correct.
However the other myth makes your camera
worthless..
Oh the other myth.. That is the alleged
distance of your star... You see with optics, everything past a certain focal
length is infinity.. It cannot be resolved.. And they have conveniently placed
all the stars at a distance well beyond your power of resolution..
Hope you got all that.. I didn't .. but it
sounds good..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 1:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] translational orbit
EUREKA!!......A translational orbit still
produces a rotational effect!...The punch line is ....
1. the axis of the rotation shifts from the
body that is being orbited to the center of the body in the translational
orbit....
2. It reverses the effects of the rotational
effects. That is to say that a clockwise orbit will produce counter clockwise
rotational impression on film where if the translational orbit is clockwise
then the rotational effects on film will be clockwise!..
The fact that the earth's has a translational
orbit around the sun cannot and will not hide a rotation around the NCP which
is offset from the nightly NEP by 23 degrees.. YES, Im already fully aware of
ALL the previous as well as possible objections.....i was able to isolate each
and every single one.........I have now found the way to prove it as well as
demonstrate how it can be accomplished in the real world ......The solution is
remarkably "simple" but extremely hard to visualize due to the complexities of
the kinematics........If you imagine a set of crosshairs they have a up/ down
equal distant mark as well as a left and right equal distant mark....The trick
is understanding that the back and fourth motion of the sun by 23 degrees
annually is nothing more then up/down deviations from that up/down center
mark.....The key is as long as the right/ left center mark does not deviate we
can still get our rotation around a axis that lay parallel to a axis that is
perpendicular and runs through the suns (ecliptic deviation/ path) since it lay
perpendicular to the up/down centerline on our cross hairs, because it lays 23
degrees offset ..this is true because any rotation around the sun or ecliptic
is not dependent on the north south deviation of the sun/ecliptic ..the
rotation & it's effects are around a axis that lay perpendicular to that
deviation. Yes we have to have a camera that does not move with respect to that
ecliptic deviation….I will show but we should already know exactly how to
accomplish that… .......the proof is quite detailed i will lay out the
fundamentals bit by bit so we don't get confused by all the motions........I
plan to submit some diagrams and photos eventually...using real stars and
demonstrating exactly how it was done...but the key is a translational motion
will still produce a rotation on the NCP .....The rub is, I kept trying to tell
you guys that the clue was "hidden" in that "most powerful definition of
rotation known to man" ....In fact, It would have to produce a rotational
effect in order for all of the motions to be "equivalent"!.............. Oh,
what fun I am going to have now....."Destruction" and "chaos" the likes of
which have not been seen since the Renaissance itself..& ..It won't take me any
400 years either!
------------------------------------------------
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it
out at www.inbox.com/earth
Other related posts:
