[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles ..part 2
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Blue...
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
Ad.1) "The two motions nightly and annual would be the same,
...because they take place in the same plane"
* The fact that the annual translational orbit takes place in the
ecliptic plane, only affects the parallactic ellipses.
There is most certainly rotation in the ecliptic plane ( by definition)
that is what you are inconsistent with in your explanations..the only
consistency is your assertion that it does not exist...?
* What you call the annual motion, still is only the nightly
rotation seen at a progressing phase NO! The nightly motion is only part of
the overall annual motion in the same way that the circular motion in a
circular sander is part of a orbital sander ..but the two are not equivalent
even though the nightly motion can be seen in the overall motion of the orbital
sander...
360°/365.25days = about 1° per day or 4 minutes further per day.
Ad.2) "It is nothing more then tilting your head/ camera while rotating
(radial orientation) around a given axis."
* I assume you mean the "given axis" axis to be the red axis, i.e.,
the ecliptic axis.
* In that case, you are not correct, because that motion is NOT a
ROTATION, but a TRANSLATION along a (nearly) circular path - the
Earth's orbit. Only because
1. you ignore the spin of the earth on that "translational" orbit ....
2. You ignore the very definition/ conditions that constitute and produce I
keep rotation in the first place..
* If it was a rotation, your camera would point 47° away from Polaris
half a year from when it does point to Polaris. NO it would not you keep making
the same mistake if a camera is fixed on the equator looking at polaris it will
always look at polaris year around!?..to add insult to injury it is you who
keeps harping on the translational motion of the earth on the celestial axis..!?
This is not the case, as we do agree on.
- Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves :
> Thanks Ja,
>
> Exactly ... your diagram shows
>
> 1. BLUE: A rotation around the blue axis nightly motions plus a snapshot at
> 24 hour intervals (radial orientation) around the annual orbit that sits on
> the same angle wrt CP as the nightly rotation does. The two motions nightly
> and annual would be the same, (circular motion around a common axis) because
> they take place in the same plane...This is the only way to make those two
> motions appear to exist in the same plane!
>
> 2 RED: The red axis is nothing more then a angled view of rotation around
> the annual ecliptic axis. It is nothing more then tilting your head/ camera
> while rotating (radial orientation) around a given axis. It would not make
> the nightly motion of the blue plus the rotation around red axis look even
> remotely like what you would observe. Those motions do not take place in the
> same plane nor would they appear too!
> The blue would only show a "circular sander" motion, where the red would
> show a "orbital sander" motion.(circular motion + a orbit)
>
> Those two configurations will never produce the same or indistinguishably
> observable effects. The red is HC. .........HC folk want everyone to believe
> that the red is the mechanical configuration/action, but the net effect of
> the blue is what the red would indistinguishably show.!?
>
>
>
> j a wrote: Allen,
>
> I attached the wrong drawing before..... don't fool with the other emails
> drawing, it is too big. Use this one.
>
> JA
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
> now.
>
>
Other related posts:
