[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
1) What is an angular view?!?!?
2) Positions of objects in the sky, are all angles.
I think you agree on this, but just a clarification for the rest
of the forum
- Regner
Good question..look at the following attached diagrams.. There is a difference
between a angular view of some part of the night sky and being in rotation at a
given angle, in this case perpendicular to the celestial axis. ( angular
displacement/path). The solar pizza should give everyone a clear understanding
of scale such that the earth's celestial axis from winter to summer is only
looking in the same direction all year.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves :
> 1. There is a fundamental difference between angular displacement as show in
> the top drawing verse a angular view..All you are describing Ja is a angular
> view. There is no problem observing a rotational effect even with a angular
> view. A angular view does not and will not ever make the motion or its
> effects disappear. Even Regner agreed.
> 2. Stars on the same celestial latitude are not the issue here. No one is
> arguing that the stars will be in motion on their various latitudes. The
> cameras change on the latitude itself ( around any circle of latitude) is not
> the issue. That motion is irrelevant. If the rotation of HC exist the
> latitude itself (stars on a latitude that sits 23.44 degrees to the celestial
> axis) wrt the cameras orientation would and must change, otherwise you cannot
> claim the motions as per HC period. You are confusing the cameras circular
> rotation around a given latitude with the orbital rotational motion. That
> motion would and must show stars out of their given nightly celestial
> latitudes particularly the ones that sit near the ecliptic axis of rotation.
>
>
>
> j a wrote: Refer to your 3d drawing. The camera you
> have maintains a parrallel position to the nightly axis, but to the annual
> axis the angle changes. If the left most earth is the start point and the
> camera is pointing 23.44 degrees to the left of the annual axis and 6 months
> later earth is on the far right.... the camera, while turned 180 degrees, is
> still pointing 23.44 degrees to the left, when if you had wished to record
> the annual axis, the camera should now be angled 23.44 degrees to the right
> of the annual axis.
>
> Place a star (think Polaris and place near the nightly axis) on your
> drawing and think about where it will fall on the photo plate for the two
> positions, far left earth and far right earth.... the camera as you have it
> positioned will only record positions which correspond to the nightly.....
>
> j a wrote:
> The camera, when fixed to the earth follows the nightly axis and thus
> changes orientation with regard to any other axis, including the 24 hour path
> you are trying to use to record an annual... it still moves around the
> nightly axis and thereby changes angles with the annual.
>
> Think of the difference between the camera locations and angle to the
> annual axis when the camera is 6 months apart.... From winter to summer is
> the easiest to see.... don't use fall to spring.
>
> Allen Daves wrote:
> The cameras orientation to any and all axis or latitudes in the sky never
> changes ....
>
>
> Allen Daves wrote: Blue......
> Allen, Your conception and logic are all correct, except for camera
> position during recording. The camera postion never changes ..?The camera
> must maintain the same angle to the axis in question during recording. It
> does!.I have demonstrated this as a fact not jsut the circular reasoning that
> keeps getting passed around...( you can only see it if there is a rotation..
> There is no rotation, that?s why you can?t see it)..Never mind that the
> cameras orientation to the common point in question is in a radial
> orientation to that point every 24 hours and the angle of the camera never
> changes to the axis we are trying to observe and that simply looking away
> does not make it or the effect go away ...!?
> The camera in all cases under consideration (and in my drawing) still rotate
> about the nightly axis, therefore it will only record a nightly star trail.
> That is a assertion that is the point of discussion here. However, It also
> rotates around the ecliptic axis. the orbit also translates to the ecliptic
> plane not the celestial axis. the two are not one and the same thing. In
> order to record an annual star trail, the camera must rotate about the annual
> axis..and to do that you must change the angle of the camera with each
> photo.absolutly not.. but this would work for a fictitious axis too. yes any
> path that can produce a radial oreintaion to a common point.
>
> JA...
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
> now.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See
> how.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
>
Other related posts:
