[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Taking pictures every
> tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly motion, just snapshots in
> different phases of the daily rotation."
Yet there is a radial orientation to a common point the sun?.. ( we don??t
have to see the sun we are on the night side of the earth).
The fact that it is a snapshot of a different phase of the daily rotation
does not mitigate or negate the orbital and Radial condition around the actual
location of the ecliptic axis, any more then snapshots on a orbital sander
would do the same. Scale is not a issue here only the mechanics of what
constitutes rotation are.
You statement asserts your position it does not address:
1. The relevance of the fact that there is a snapshot of the daily rotation.
That fact was never in question. We all agree on that. It is and would be a
snap shot of the nightly for the same exact reasons that it is and must be a
"snap shot" of the annual orbit. ( for the exact same reason it is a snap shot
of the nightly rotation)
2. You try to accomplish this but the only way you have done this thus far is
by either by merrly asserting it as true or by using a inconstant use of the
term "rotation". The annual radial condition that parallaxes the axis in
question holds true for both the celestial as well as ecliptic. You have yet to
show any mechanical or any difference for that matter between the two except
by simply assertin it as a fact.
One simply does not follow the other. You assert all of this without being
able to demonstrate that is even true. You argument is equivalent to arguing
that since the circular motion of the circular sander is found be seen in a
orbital sander, (by taking a snapshot of the circular motion) thus we would not
expect to even be able to observe or perceive the orbital motion via the same
method!?. ( you assert the orbital and circular motions would be identical)
You hold the nightly motion is to be found in the annual. That is accepted by
both sides, but you don?t demonstrate or even explain in a consistent manner
how that fact prevents the other from being observed. Your inconsistency is
made obvious by your attempt to use a contradictory standard/definition of the
term "rotation". Any reason or demonstration of the nightly motions or the
reasons for those effects is given i show you how and why the equally apply to
the annual motion. You certainly have not made any distinction between the two
rotations nightly v annually except by assertion.
I have shown and demonstrated how any definition you can and or have put
forward, for the nightly, applies equally and for the exact same reasons to the
annual orbit. ( with or without a translational motion to the celestial axis.)
Aalthough, you emphatically assert we can not take a snapshot of the orbital
motion you still don't tell us how the translational motion of the celestial
axis prevents us from taking that snap shot in a progressive radial orientation
to the ecliptic axis. I have shown and demonstrated very plainly and
consistently how you can.
> Neville
> www.GeocentricUniverse.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: art@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:00:44 +1100
>
> Dear all,
>
> Preamble
> I have produced two animations (attached) that hopefully address some
> of the questions raised during the last weeks time. This is a response to
> several E-mails by several authors, raising the same kinds of questions.
> Allen, that I do not reply explicitly to your E-mails, does not mean
> that I am evading or ignoring your questions. Please take the time to
> read this and see that I do address your questions.
> I would rather have people read and understand and re-read this post,
> rather than rush to write a quick (hurried) reply. If you do hurry your
> reply, my time writing this post will most likely be wasted - and I hate
> wasting time. And it did take some time...
>
> General about the animations
> They both show the Earth in orbit around the Sun. It is not to scale,
> but the Earth's daily spin axis (dashed line) is shown at the correct
> angle to the ecliptic plane (tilted 100 towards the viewer) and the
> ecliptic axis (dotted line). I have shows latitudes for every 300 and
> longitudes for every 450 (pink), to show the orientation of the Earth.
> The pink straight line shows the direction to the Sun, and the dotted
> part is inside the Earh, making it clearer where it enters the Earth.
>
> Animation #1 - translational orbit
> EarthOrb3_10.gif, please refer to this as Ani.1.
> This shows the translational orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
> This happens in the plane of the ecliptic, but involves no rotation.
> The orientation of the Earth is the same throughout the year.
> This is what you see if:
> a) you do not include the daily spin around the celestial axis,
> i.e., you isolate the translational part of Earth's motion during a year.
> b) you include the spin and take a snapshot every period of that spin
> i.e., the sidereal (stellar) day = 23h56m.
> The result will be the exact same in either case.
>
> Notice how the radial line to the Sun (the part inside the Earth, is dotted)
> changes both latitude and longitude during the year.
>
> 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 +23.50 in the Northern
> summer (right) to -23.50 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
>
>
> P.S. The animations are animated gif-files. Please report if you have trouble
> viewing them. I don't know whether they are trivial to Windows or Mac
> systems.
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
