[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:42:02 +1100
Allen Daves,
Your post a far too long - I would much appreciate if you could tighten
up your writing a bit.
My replies interspersed below.
------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Most of the diagrams here have been updated with one completly new one
>
Thanks - doesn't change anything, though - which I guess is also your point.
> 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).
>
I believe I have included all pieces of information necessary for under-
standing my posts and my figures.
> We agree that looking in a different direction does not make a rotation
> disappear.
>
Good.
> 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.
>
I have told you before, that they don't.
What are those numbers referring to?
> Simply having one does not prevent the other.
>
As a matter of fact - if you want both axes to keep their orientation in space
- the celestial axis always pointing to (approximately) the North Star, and
the ecliptic axis always being perpendicular to the ecliptic - then you simply
CANNOT have ROTATION around BOTH axes.
In the corrected Fig.3:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/gif2i1Q7CRrw2.gif
I have shown you exactly what it would look like with
ROTATION around both axes. PLEASE take a look at that figure again. You keep
telling me that it doesn't show your view of the HC model - but it does.
You cannot have the rotation around the ecliptic without screwing up the
rotation around the celestial axis
> And if it
> does then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how. I have already
> show how and you even agreed.
>
You have stated some self-contradictory things in the past and I have pointed
out which parts I agree with - you have actually never commented on any of
that, but just latch on to the part I agree on.
> Your animations show effects that are either irrelevant to my argument...
>
Well, I'm afraid I just showed you the HC view - if that is irrelevant to
you, then I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused you.
> or ignores the altogether a path that produces a
> radial orientation of the fixed camera over the course of a year to the
> ecliptic.
>
Yes - because there isn't such a thing! It is neither a part of the
HC model or part of reality.
Besides - you didn't recognize it when I showed it to you in the
corrected Fig.3:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/gif2i1Q7CRrw2.gif
> 1.. I stated that in making your arguments you are not applying the
> definition of rotation consistently.
>
Yes I do.
> We agreed that regardless of the path a
> body takes, a progressive radial orientation to a common point, is/ will
> constituent a rotation...
>
Yes - I agree.
> or rotational effect. (See attached diagram)#13-2;
>
This "rotational effect" thing you have invented doesn't clarify things if
you don't define it. Please, can you just stick to rotation - or at least
use language that is commonly agreed upon - there is plenty to choose from.
> 15-3& 15-2 Although you keep asserting that there is no rotation around the
> ecliptic,
>
I do.
What are those numbers referring to?
> 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.
>
No - you have shown that the projection onto the ecliptic plane looks like
that.
If you would please take Ani.2 seriously and realize that it exactly
addresses your question - and please don't dismiss me quite yet.
I put the green line out along the equatorial plane, because you were
looking for a "radial condition". You still haven't defined what this
"radial condition" is, but my best shot, is that it means that:
"you can form a straight line that goes between the centre of the
Earth, the Sun, and a a fixed point (latitude and longitude) on Earth."
* Your assertion is that such a line can be formed every 24 hours.
* I am showing you that you can't - it will only work twice a year at the
equinoxes.
* The pink line between the centres of the Earth and the Sun, obviously
changes latitude (where it enters Earth) during the year. Exactly as I
stated in my post.
* If you were to be correct, then the pink line should enter the Earth at
the exact same latitude and longitude every 24 hours. It doesn't.
> The camera translates only on one of its axis, & one of
> its axis only, towards the celestial axis.
>
Eh, a translation does not involve an axis...
Something being moved in a circle around an axis, does not move
towards or away from that axis. That's the definition of a circle...
> The camera still rotates on the
> ecliptic plane itself.
>
In which case it can't be fixed to the Earth.
> ( crosswise, sideways, crosswise. on the ecliptic plane around the
> ecliptic axis).
>
I have no idea what that means..?..
> 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.
>
Because of English being my second language, I'm not sure what an orbital
sander is - if it is what I think it is, then it would only support my
argument.
> I show it in a diagram and it is a accurate depiction of what takes place.
>
If only you could tell me which diagram you refer to...
> 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!?
>
Nope. I have done my best to tell you why.
> A. Now first of all you have not disagreed with the depictions of the
> diagrams I gave you.
>
I have told you that your first figure of this post (two plots) are
projections on a plane - the ecliptic, which means that you miss the point
that a line (camera, umbrella, alligator I don't care what) sticking out
from a fixed pointed on Earth, will NOT stay in the ecliptic plane - rather
it will stay in the equatorial plane.
Your projections onto the ecliptic means that your top two plots of
this post, correspond to a top-view of your very bottom figure of this post.
The one with the title "This is NOT HC & THE TWO ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!"
- the title, of course, we agree on.
Despite the title, this is what you show in your very first two figures
of this post.
> ( 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)
>
I'll quietly ignore those assumptions and insinuations about me.
> B. You attempt to use some standard of "rotation" that is either entirely
> inconsistent with what was already agreed to.
>
No.
> 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.
>
Absolutely correct (well, a celestial pole, obviously - not the 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.
>
Absolutely correct.
But then we agree, and there is only one axis of rotation!
- the celestial axis.
> The transnational motion of the camera
>
Hmmm, I guess that precludes a camera that is fixed on Earth...
> to the celestial axis only applies to the
> cameras "x" axis.
>
That doesn't make sense.
It is the whole Earth, including camera, that is performing a continuous
translational motion.
That motion is in the ecliptic plane. You have one
axis, the Y-axis, in the ecliptic plane. It takes two axes to define (span)
a plane if the axis are in that plane.
> It?s x axis to the celestial axis (see attached diagram.)
>
It only takes one axis to define a plane perendicular to that axis.
Your X-axis (the celestial axis) defines the equatorial plane and
your Z-axes lies in that plane.
> #15-3 The camera unequivocally rotates as a function of y & z vectors
>
Your statement doesn't make sense, and is therefore not unequivocal.
The rotation is around your X-axis (= the celestial axis). Your Z-axis
is in the equatorial plane, as defined by your X-axis.
> which lie on the ecliptic plane.
>
Only the Y-axis is in 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.
>
This is were I get thoroughly lost.
You are concerned about what happens to a camera, fixed on Earth, pointing
in a fixed direction with respect to Earth, and when I tell you what happens
to that camera I am dismissed as being irrelevant!
I think it's time for me to get back to work.
Allen, please read my replies and try to understand. We have hashed through
this same stuff so many times now.
Regner
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
e
Other related posts:
