[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:18:13 -0800 (PST)
Most of the diagrams here have been updated with one completly new one
Regner & All,
You state: "I don't get your arguments - there are too many pieces missing."
this is in essense the cental and key issue i am pointing out to you in all my
comments about your argument(s).
We agree that looking in a different direction does not make a rotation
disappear. I?m waiting for you to address the diagrams I gave you that clearly
show the rotation ( by a definition that we agreed to)#1 & 11 not only around
the celestial axis ( that was never in dispute) but also around the ecliptic
axis. Simply having one does not prevent the other. And if it does then the
burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how. I have already show how and you
even agreed. Your animations show effects that are either irrelevant to my
argument or ignores the altogether a path that produces a radial orientation of
the fixed camera over the course of a year to the ecliptic.
1.. I stated that in making your arguments you are not applying the
definition of rotation consistently. We agreed that regardless of the path a
body takes, a progressive radial orientation to a common point, is/ will
constituent a rotation or rotational effect. (See attached diagram)#13-2; 15-3&
15-2 Although you keep asserting that there is no rotation around the ecliptic,
I show you that there clearly is at 24 hour intervals a radial orientation to
the ecliptic axis regaurdless of the time it takes the earth to spin on its
axis. The camera translates only on one of its axis, & one of its axis only,
towards the celestial axis. The camera still rotates on the ecliptic plane
itself. ( crosswise, sideways, crosswise. on the ecliptic plane around the
ecliptic axis). The rotation is not limited to the celestial axis it also just
as in the case of a orbital sander v a circular sander it also rotates around
the ecliptic axis, period. I show it in a diagram and it is a accurate
depiction of what takes place. If looking in another direction does not make a
rotation or rotational effect disappear then the only argument as of yet you
have attempted to make is in fact not a argument or demonstration at all, but
merely an assertion that there is no rotation around the ecliptic!?
A. Now first of all you have not disagreed with the depictions of the
diagrams I gave you.( For good reason..you cannot demonstrate that the
conditions i show don?t exist just as shown, rather you attempt opt argue their
meaning. It is in that endeavor I demonstrate your inconsistency and
contradiction of terms)
B. You attempt to use some standard of "rotation" that is either entirely
inconsistent with what was already agreed to. Now the diagrams are pretty self
explanatory. I show a fixed camera on the equator looking at the celestial
axis. Since the earth spins around that celestial axis at the equator, the
camera will always point to the celestial axis. Thus the cameras orientation to
the night sky is know throughout the whole experiment. The camera cannot and
will not rotate out of that position ever. The transnational motion of the
camera to the celestial axis only applies to the cameras "x" axis. It?s x axis
to the celestial axis (see attached diagram.) #15-3 The camera unequivocally
rotates as a function of y & z vectors which lie on the ecliptic plane.
2. You claim:........."Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day (24h00m),
just means you are taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the daily
rotation whose real period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For Each
day, you let the Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a picture. A
year of that will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial axis"
A. This issue was never in question, nor is it even relevant. We are not
looking for any motion of the stars around their various latitudes on the
celestial sphere/circles. We are only looking for a change in the latitude
itself wrt the cameras fixed position due to rotation around the ecliptic axis.
B. Since we know which stars are on which latitude, the stars can be in
constant motion around their given latitudes but, if there is a change in the
latitude ( wrt camera) that change will be apparent without looking/ focusing
on any given or specific star.
Then you err with this conclusion which as of yet has not demonstrated a
logical path to its arrival... it is not a path it is merely reasserts your
position.
"Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly motion,
just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation.".
The motion of the stars in progressive circles around their specified
latitude is and has been completely irrelevant from the very beginning. Of
course the stars are going to move on the nightly circles of their given
latitudes in the same way that any other compound motion will still must
demonstrate any of the other motions used to create it? What does not logically
& mechanically follow is that the presence or observation of one motion negates
the observablity of the other. You conclusion is not logically supported any
more then it would be logical to say that because we observe a circular motion
in a orbital sander thus the all the motions are equivalent and we could not
observe the orbital motion either..!? it would be one thing if you demonstrated
that as I did in my diagram which showed how to make the two motions
indistinguishable. You on the other hand don?t demonstrate or explain anything,
you merely assert that you could not because there is no rotational
motion. However you can?t explain how or why there is no rotational motion
without contradicting the previously agreed to items or arguing in circles..!?
The only reasons thus far given by anyone to explain how or why there is no
rotation around the ecliptic axis contradict what was already agreed upon.
I show how you can mimic the nightly motion as a annual orbit such that the
two would be indistinguishable. There was agreement that it would. However we
also agreed it was not equivalent to HC. (See attached # 15-2) merely looking a
different direction ( at the ecliptic axis) does not make a rotation or a
rotational effect disappear. That was agreed upon. Merely asserting that there
is no rotation demonstrates nothing. Telling us that the annual motion produces
a snapshot of the nightly motions says absolutely nothing.
Conclusion:
I have demonstrated what constitutes a rotation and what would produce a
rotational effect.
I have demonstrated how a fixed camera to the earth meets those conditions
precisely over the course of a annual orbit.
Your only objections have been either an assertion that it does not exist or
some vauge implied reference that since the camera is facing the celestial axis
it only rotates around the celestial axis. It is that point of contradiction
that seems to be missed. We already agreed to the fact that there is no
difference between rotation and merely looking in another direction while in
rotation. The same effects would be observable if a rotation exist. Then you
attempt to argue in circles by claiming there is no rotation. The arguments you
have put forward only assert that conclusion as the premise on which the
argument (that supposedly proves/ demonstrates it) is built upon.
If looking in a different direction does not make it disappear then as of yet
there has been no argument that demonstrates (not merely asserts) that there is
no rotation around the ecliptic. Your arguments not mine are missing too too
many peices with absolutly no logical path demonstrated for the conclusitons
arival.
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen - I don't get your arguments - there are too many pieces missing.
Could you please, step-for-step, tell us how my statements (from the caption
of Ani.2):
"Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day (24h00m), just means you are
taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the daily rotation whose real
period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For Each day, you let the
Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a picture. A year of that
will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial axis. During the
same time you have completed a full TRANSLATION around the Sun.
Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly motion,
just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation."
violates your
"three [sic]preiviously agreed [sic]apon facts
1. the two are not equal.....only the [sic]botom one would mimic the nightly
action
2. a rotation still exist (and it is around the ecliptic)
3. looking in another direction does not make a rotational effect disappear"
Well - it does, of course, violate the parenthesis in 2.
Ad 1. That's why I stated that in the captions - and why would I waste time
and bandwidth making two identical animations?!?!?
Ad 2. I do not, and have never, agreed to there being a ROTATION around the
ecliptic axis - If you meant to say that I have agreed to that, then
you are severely twisting my words.
Ad 3. Yes, I have pointed out that any rotation will be visible/recognizable
which-ever direction you look at. Even in that post
- Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves :
> We have already discused this Philip and even Regner Agreed to the
> fundimentals..look at the diagram....
>
> That argument violates three preiviously agreed apon facts
> 1. the two are not equal.....only the botom one would mimic the nightly
> action
> 2. a rotation still exist (and it is around the ecliptic)
> 3. looking in another direction does not make a rotational effect
> disappear
>
> I will add also that the argument violates any and all
> experimentation....!?
>
> philip madsen
wrote:
> Allen, you need to read this especially what I underlined, and be
> sure you understand what is being said.. Philip.
>
> Animation #2 - daily (Solar) snapshots
> ---------------------------------------
> EarthOrb3_10_trop.gif, please refer to this as Ani.2.
> We now add the daily rotation/spin of the Earth around the celestial axis,
> and we take a snapshot every tropical (Solar) day.
>
> Notice how the line to the Sun (pink) stays at the same longitude - that
> is the definition of tropical (Solar) day. The latitude of that line,
> however, changes during the year - going from +23.5° in the Northern
> summer (right) to -23.5° in the Northern winter (left) - that's why we
> have seasons.
>
> Allen, Neville and others, have suggested that cameras mounted (fixed) on
> Earth, would see a rotation around the ecliptic axis (dotted line) during
> a year. I have therefore mounted a camera on the equator to look straight
> up at zenith (radially out from the Earth). I have mounted my camera to
> look towards the Sun at noon, instead of out at midnight, but I hope you
> realize that this has no consequence for this discussion.
> The green line shows the direction of view of that camera.
> During the year it sweeps out the equatorial plane of Earth.
> It rotates around the Earth's axis of daily rotation = celestial axis.
> If you look at it from above, the projection will make it look like the
> camera looks straight towards the Sun - This is what Allen's and Neville's
> figures depicts (except they have their cameras face the opposite direction
> towards the local meridian at midnight). It is however, a projection effect
> - in three dimensions you realize that the camera (green line) only points
> to the Sun twice a year - at the solstices.
> It should also be clear that you can move the camera to any spot on Earth
> and have it look in any direction - if it is kept fixed, it will only
> see the daily rotation around the celestial axis (dashed line).
> Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day (24h00m), just means you are
> taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the daily rotation whose real
> period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For Each day, you let the
> Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a picture. A year of that
> will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial axis. During the
> same time you have completed a full TRANSLATION around the Sun.
> Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly motion,
> just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation.
>
> Looking carefully at high-quality images taken every sidereal (stellar)
> day (see Ani.1) you will see parallaxes for some of the closer stars
> - this is the manifestation of the annual (translational) motion around
> the Sun.
>
> James, your drawing is beautiful and shows the same thing, as I show.
> The only slightly misleading thing, is that you have drawn grid-lines on
> Earth that are w.r.t. the ecliptic axis (green) - the grid should be tilted
> to be aligned with the celestial (red) axis. I also agree with Neville and
> Allen (I believe) that one of the blue "cameras" should be marked with a
> different colour, to be able to follow the rotation.
>
> Sorry for this post being so long, but there were many points to address.
> I also try to keep misunderstandings to a minimum by rephrasing things.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Regner
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Daves
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:27 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
>
>
> I took a break this week end and this is the first time i got on since
> friday. I have to say I?m suprised by this but I respect your decision
> Neville. I will not concede however for two basic reasons.
>
> 1.Regner's/ these argumental proofs are made w.r.t. a camera sweeping out
> of it place (Green arrow/line) when facing the ecliptic axis. My argument
> does not have anything to do with the camera facing the ecliptic axis. It is
> looking at the celestial axis all year every day..it canont change its
> oreintaion nor can it sweep anywhere!? The cameras orientation can never
> changes wrt any axis,( it could not follow the green arrow, ever ) for it is
> always parallel to the celestial axis. (all day all year) That would never
> change year around. at midnight parallel to the celestial axis is by the
> defintion we all agreed to a rotation. The point i argue on is that simply
> looking at the celestial axis does not/ cannot make the rotation & parallax
> of the actual ecliptic axis or its effects disappear. This is the point of
> the diagrams. It shows that and as of yet no one as addressed any error with
> it? Not only does that diagram it self make & prove the point. But Regner
> even agreed
> to the fundamental meaning of that diagram. If simply looking at the
> celestial axis does not make the rotational effect around the ecliptic
> disappear then what is the argument? If it does how dose it do that without
> violating the previous axioms to which all agreed to !? The fact that the
> nightly would be manifested in the annual was and is not in question. Nor
> does it automatically follow that there is no other motion to be observed for
> the reasons i gave ( & example radial sander v circular)
>
> 2. Secondly, Actual experiments not just a the lack of logic from its
> distracters will show all of my arguments valid, including the basic
> conclusion. A camera using the real Polaris and stars rotated and translated
> the way we have been discussing will show the difference between the
> motions??even in translation with the conditions we have all discussed and
> even agreed to.
>
> Untill some one acctualy address the arguments that I put forward i will
> not conceed. If someone has then please outline it copy and past the parts of
> Regners post that i missed for me cause i dont see it at all?
>
>
> Neville Jones wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I respected Regner's request not to immediately respond to his last posting,
> but instead have been giving this whole matter very careful consideration.
>
> There is now no doubt in my mind that the 24-hour images about the ecliptic
> polar axis are always going to be snapshots of the diurnal rotation in the
> heliocentric model and I concede, therefore, that the celestial poles
> argument does not disprove the heliocentric model.
>
> Steven and my web site will be amended in the near future, God willing, to
> reflect this retraction.
>
> I would just like to thank you all for some excellent debating and for the
> many illustrations that several of you have provided. I hope that none of you
> feel that your efforts were either wasted or unappreciated.
>
> This topic will not be closed yet, since Allen has not had a chance to fully
> digest Regner's post. If he concedes, as I have, then we will close it off,
> otherwise he will now have one more to convince!
>
> I hope that our little forum family is strengthened by this discussion and
> that each one of us has learnt something from it, I know that I have. If,
> however, anyone feels disappointed, then I apologise to you for building your
> hopes up.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neville
> www.GeocentricUniverse.com
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 24/11/2007
> 5:58 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
