[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:35:40 -0800 (PST)
1. You cannot produce a purely translational motion on a spinning body.
2. The only thing moving with a purely translational orbit is the celestial
axis not every point on the earth, it cannot it is spinning! Every point on
earth does not face the same direction at all times. Only one axis is facing
the celestial axis but there are three axis to any given point. The ecliptic
axis does not lie on the same as the celestial axis.
2. You claim there are annual trails due to the nightly observer parallax-ing
the celestial axis and that is why there really are annual star trails. You
can?t do that without paralax-ing the ecliptic axis. If parallax is all that is
needed then that condition exist for the ecliptic as well. Simply looking the
other way does not make it disappear. The translational motion of the earth
only applies to the celestial axis not how an observer is oriented to the sun
and yet you claim it does ( no rotation) somehow even though you have agreed it
cannot. Otherwise you have not nor can you explain how a annual motion around
the ecliptic can produce anything.
3.Rotation is a progressive radial orientation to a common point (axis/sun).
Yet when you are show that one exist every 24 hours of every night, you say it
is not because it is looking at the celestial axis.( In another direction) This
is after you have already agreed that looking the other way has no effect on a
rotation. ..and yet you claim that since you are facing the celestial axis that
no rotation exist or can be seen....You keep using the term rotation way for
one motion but even thought the same conditions exist for the other motion you
claim it is non existent!?
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
This assembly of words is not making any sense:
"......but mechanicaly that is not even posible requries
contridictions in terms and defintions to accomplish such feets, as
I have pointed out......"
Please tell me what those mechanical impossibilities are - I see none.
Please tell me what those contradictions are - I see none.
Please do it clearly and briefly - Let's not get back to our old
habits again.
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves :
> The point i was making was the point you raised..."Again, not detectable by
> the casual observer."......but mechanicaly that is not even posible requries
> contridictions in terms and defintions to accomplish such feets, as I have
> pointed out......
>
> Regner Trampedach wrote:
> Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> > NO you can not, and that is the rub. HC claims there is no difference
> between
> > what the annual motion and the nightly motion produce.
> >
> That is not quite correct. I think I have found one of the misunderstandings
> in this discussion. Please read carefully.
> a) The daily rotation is around the celestial axis.
> It produces the nightly star-trails.
> We agree on that.
> b) The annual orbital translation around the Sun occurs in the ecliptic.
> This produces the paralactic ellipses, as I described in pt.5 of this post:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00917.html
> "5) Parallax displays itself as an ellipse with the eccentricity
> (oblateness)
> determined by the ecliptic (not the celestial) latitude of the star. At
> the [celestial poles] the paralactic motion over a year, will describe a
> circle - at the ecliptic equator a star will go back and forth along
> a straight line."
> As Paul Deema pointed out in this post:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/msg00921.html
> The [celestial poles] should be changed to 'ecliptic poles'.
> This is the annual motion - it is very small scale and will not be
> observed by the casual observer.
> I believe we agree on that.
> c) The crucial part.
> What has been interpreted as a separate annual rotation around the
> celestial axis is nothing of the sort.
> To recapitulate:
> i) 1 tropical (Solar) day (24h00m) of the daily rotation puts the
> observer in the same orientation with respect to the Sun.
> ii) 1 sidereal (stellar) day (23h56m) of the daily rotation puts the
> observer in the same orientation with respect to the stars.
> Several people have referred to observations in the same direction
> w.r.t Earth (e.g., straight up) at local midnight, as showing the
> annual motion - see various figures by Allen and Neville.
> That is not correct.
> It is merely showing different phases of the daily motion.
> The true period of the daily rotation, is the sidereal day.
> Taking pictures every Solar day merely means that you let the Earth
> rotate a bit further (in its daily rotation) before you take a picture.
> It's not a separate movement.
> Taking pictures every sidereal day will result in the annual paralactic
> motion. Again, not detectable by the casual observer.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Regner
>
>
> > So how are you going
> > to show the motion, when HC itself calims there is no differnece between
> the
> > two..? However, HC can not do that the way HC is modeled. That is our
> point!
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Deema
> wrote:
> >
> > Jack L
> > This heliocentrist is NOT saying that the second (annual revolution)
> motion
> > cannot be detected. I have been describing how it CAN be detected for a
> year
> > and a half but unfortunately this seems to be in most everyone's dark
> > cupboard into which none of you seem to have the courage look.
> > I've tried to remove the subject from this emotional exclusion zone by
> > shifting the phenomenon to Mars but that didn't work either. See several
> > short posts "Translational motion of Mars".
> > Egocentrism? Spelling error or is there a point here that I am missing?
> > Paul D
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Jack Lewis
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 9:08:38 PM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
> >
> > Dear All,
> > In the heliocentric model it would appear that there are two movements
> > taking place, which is not disputed, but the observations support only one
> > movement- egocentrism. The heliocentrists seem to be saying that the
> second
> > movement cannot be detected for reasons I do not understand. Will it help
> if
> > I ask the question, why can't it be detected if it exists? We can't see
> the
> > moon turning actually but we know it does simply by the observations and
> > dynamics involved. Therefore I would expect the helios to be able to do
> the
> > same.
> >
> > Jack
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Allen Daves
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:52 PM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
> >
> >
> > Ja,
> >
> > I agree with your drawings... Again no one is debating the fact that the
> > annual motion will record the nightly motion....that is a FACT!...however
> it
> > is also a fact that a secondary motion would and must be present that is
> not
> > a assumption that is a physical fact, just as in the case of a orbital
> > sander........Your conclusion which states just the opposite is an
> assumption
> > by definition.....What do you not understand?
> >
> > more in blue....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
> >
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
