[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Regner,
Me in blue....Im glad you stoped long enough to respond...now stop long
enouph to consider what you just stated and your diagram.
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Allen Daves :
> Regner,
> Im glad you have had the time to finaly join us..I address your "points" in
> blue
>
> I attached some diagrams because it is obvious you have not had a change
> to keep up with our discussions
>
I believe I have apologized for that elsewhere already.
> ..many of your points are either moot or not in question....
>
From what you write below, I'm afraid you are wrong on that account.
> Regner Trampedach wrote:
> As a warm up, I'll try to throw a little light on what happens to our
> view of the sky during a year, as seen from the heliocentric viewpoint.
> Several people have raised a point that Earth should be spinning around
> two sets of poles if the heliocentric view is correct and the observations
> therefore blatantly contradicts this view. This is not correct.
> I have included two figures illustrating my points and there is a little
> glossary at the bottom. Sorry for the long post, but I hope you will find
> it precise, concise and to the point, never-the-less.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fig. 1: The Earth at the four seasons.
> To the left: Northern summer solstice/Southern winter solstice,
> nearest: Northern autumnal equinox/Southern vernal equinox,
> to the right: Northern winter solstice/Southern summer solstice,
> and farthest: Northern vernal equinox/Southern autumnal equinox.
> This figure is far out of proportion, for clarity - that is the sizes of
> the Sun, the Earth and the Earth's orbit, are not to scale (see Fig. 2 for
> the correct relative proportions). The spin axis, however, is at the correct
> angle and all the conclusions about the sky as seen from Earth are unchanged
>
> > This states the HC position, but it explains nothing.
> >
It's just the explanation of what the figure shows - nothing else!
I am glad that you couldn't find anything new in that.
> > It is however
> > entirely inaccurate and falsifiable. In fact if you had ever bothered to
> > model what you are suggesting here you would you would have seen that this
> > has already been falsified !?...........it is about rotation on the
ecliptic
> > axis not the celestial axis....
> >
If you had ever bothered to look at the sky...
LOL.........Yes,....I have bothered to look at the sky thanks.....
> Point 1)
> We see that the four instances of Earth are an integer number of sidereal
> days apart, because the Earth is facing the same way. Imagine you are a
> star. Juan in Spain is looking at you. As you are sitting about 30cm from
> the monitor, Juan is going to see you at slightly different positions in the
> sky, during the year - that is what we call parallax. You, as the star, have
> to look in slightly different directions to see Juan in Spain. The largest
> difference will be between the leftmost and the rightmost part of the orbit
> - that is, half a year apart. Now, on my screen, the Earth orbit in that
> figure is about 16 cm - that corresponds to you (the star) being only 2 AU
> away - that is still well inside the Solar system. The closest star is more
> than 100,000 times further away. If you move a mere 10 times further away
> from the screen (3 m) you notice that the angular size of the Earth orbit in
> the figure is a lot smaller. 10,000 times further away, and you won't be
> able
> to distinguish between the left and the right side of the orbit (or see your
> monitor, for that matter...).
>
> Conclusion: Juan will see all the stars in the same place, throughout the
> year,...
> > The nightly rotational effect (nightly star trails) will be in the same
> > place, all year long because the size of the earths orbit will not have an
> > effect on the position of the nightly since the earths tilt is in the same
> > direction year around. You will see the same distance of the stars away
from
> > that (nightly) rotational axis all year around..YES.....this is not in
> > question.....Your point here is either a statment of your postion or a moot
> > stament. It does not address the mechanics under discussion at all.
> > In fact
> > we have already covered this issue with the size of the earth's orbital
> > diameter/ barrycenter around the sun is irrelevant! That fact holds true
for
> > the nightly as well as the annual axis...Again It is not the issue under
> > consideration.. we are looking at the rotational condition itself, not the
> > size/shape of the rotations... size and shape of the rotations eliptical or
> > perfect circles does not negate the observable affect of a rotational
> > condition Period!
> >
Now, this is the important part - I am capitalizing it, so it doesn't get
lost in this long post.
============================================================================
I JUST SHOWED THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE SPIN AXIS (ROTATION = SPIN).
THE AXIS OF THE DAILY ROTATION. THIS AXIS POINTS TO THE EQUATORIAL NORTH
AND SOUTH POLES. THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
TRANSLATIONAL AND ROTATIONAL MOVEMENTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.
THERE IS NO WAY OF HAVING A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT BEHAVE/SEEM/LOOK LIKE
A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT.
THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS.
Regner you must be joking!... I have attached some diagrams for you they
...You need to study them carefully because your explaining is
1 a outright fabrication that is not consistent with HC claims....& yes i
know what im talking about..
2. Take your diagram of yours and submit it to NASA..they will laugh you
right out the door...who do you think you are talking too here....?
3.Your diagram only shows a axis of rotation on the north celestial pole but
to do that you having facing diametrically different directions at different
times of the year!?......your diagram dose not even show the ecliptic axis. If
what you put forward in your diagram were even true, where the celestial pole (
nightly axis of rotation) moved around the earth with the earth, If that took
place in reality, then over the course of a year that axis would be facing in
diametrically different directions...!!!! Look at your own diagram, for crying
out loud, its absurd! Further, each star would have different relational
distances to the axis and produce different size star trials year around.!?
.......Although, you may understand "some astronomy" you have absolutely no
understanding of the mechanics involved here!...The distance of the star from
the axis of rotation is what determines the size of any star
trails...period!..Since you have the axis in different directions at different
times of the year (north & or south) the sizes would change constantly, because
both poles cannot face the same direction in the sky at the same time and still
shift the direction they face in..!@?. If you had ever bothered to model such
an absurdity you would see that such large distance to the stars makes what you
suggest impossible and is easily demonstrated!?..Try to modle that here on
earth using the real stars...( It being so much smaller then you can?t argue on
grounds of great distance & scale) .. . The nightly cannot mask the annual
because the axis lay in different directions over the course of any single
year......because they lay on different angels to each
other..............
I think i understand why this might be so difficult for you...
You are looking at it backwards. It is the observations that contradict your
position. Observations cannot contradict what i demonstrate without assuming in
effect " since we know the earth is going around the sun and we don?t observe
the rotation thus we must not be able to view the secondary rotation"....Your
statements are simply your positions that assume the very thing in question as
proof for itself!?
If the motions existed as per the HC model then there is by definition a
rotational condition that exist and must/ would manifest itself in a photo
graphic plate. Your diagram only creates problems for you. It does not
addresses the problems. The fact that no such condition manifest itself does
not prove that im wrong, it proves your position is wrong. You have the cart
before the horse! The mechanics and observations come first then the
conclusions not your conclusions then assume how the mechanics must manifest
themselfs... For crying out loud you can falsefy everything you just put
forward if you just bothered to model it. there is no way to model the
condition you diagram..it is physicaly imposible to demonstrate!
You see Regener, that was and is the whole point of my #1 Your position for
it to be valid must start with the assumption that HC conclusion is true first.
You do so without realy understanding the underlying assumptions that it is
built upon. If you did understand the assumptions you would see real quick the
underlying assumptions are not only in error but they must assume the
conclusion HC first and then try to interpret the data, even though the data
contradicts that position.
I'm gon?a stop here because everything else that follows is just more
conclusions based on false premises put forward in your diagram........
.other.============================================================================
> ...if there is an integer (whole) number of sidereal days between his
> observations.
>
>
> Point 2)
> The thing that will change, is whether he can see you at all. at the
> leftmost and farthest away (northern spring and summer), Juan will not be
> able to see you because it is daytime. During the year, the solar time of
> the day, corresponding to a given sidereal time, will go through 24 hours.
> The sidereal time of day is the same in all four instances in Fig. 1, but
> the Solar time for Juan is (something like) 8am, 2am, 8pm and 2pm, going
> from Summer, Fall, Winter to Spring in Fig. 1.
>
> > This a stament about the effects of 24 hour days on sidereal
> > time.............No body in disagrement with this..
> >
Good.
But you never-the-less disagrees.
I am saying that Point 2) is the only thing that changes during the year
(apart from the, for this matter, inconsequential parallaxes to stars,
movements of planets, precise distance to the Sun, etc., etc.). That means
THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS.
THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
> > what has this got to do with what we are talking about?.....
> >
See above. And besides, I have no way of knowing what parts of science
the various contributors in this discussion agrees on or knows about.
I was trying to be clear and avoid misunderstandings.
> > again, I will attach some diagrams for
> > you because it is obvious to me that you have not had a chance to keep up
> > with where we are in all this.....
>
Thank you.
> Point 3)
> The orbit around the Sun is not a spin, but a translational movement.
> In other words, the spin axis (with the Earth attached) is moved around in
> the orbit, without changing the direction of the spin axis.
> It would be very hard to explain, physically, a yearly wobble of the Earth's
> spin axis of +/-23 degrees.
>
> Conclusion: There is only one spin axis of Earth and observations of
> far-away stars completely agree with the heliocentric picture. Closer stars,
> on the other hand, have measurable parallaxes and many of those also move
> perceptibly (not to the naked eye) with respect to the Sun.
>
> > 1.your conclusion is based on a false premise ...The earth not mater
how
> > you wish to define "spin" is still however by definition in a rotational
> > condition even if in a wobble or out of round rotation, an ellipse does not
> > help you it hurts your case....
> >
1a) I am not redefining spin - look it up in a dictionary.
1b) Rotation = spin.
Saying that the Earth is "in a rotational condition" seems an overly
complicated way of saying that the Earth rotates.
In science we try not to make things more complicated than they are.
1c) The yearly motion of the Earth through its orbit is not a rotation.
THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
THERE IS NO WAY OF HAVING A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT BEHAVE/SEEM/LOOK LIKE
A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT.
1d) An elliptic orbit is the accurate term. It makes no difference for
the argument, and it definitely doesn't hurt the case for HC.
I strive to be precise, concise and avoid misunderstandings
- that's why I mentioned it.
> > 2.. The supposed ellipse wobble you are referring to is only ~3% see
> > attached diagram ..this fact only complicates not explains your position
> >
See 1d) above.
> > ,,,the greater the out of round it is the larger not smaller effect it
> > would have
> >
How could anyone think otherwise?!?!
> > ...and a camera on a elliptical board looking at Polaris or any other star
> > for that matter demonstrates this..
> >
I don't quite see what you are referring to here...
> > 3. If the distance of the earth?s orbit around the sun has not effect on
> > what we observe then we can draw the NEP (axis) anywhere on earth's orbit
at
> > any time during its orbit and doing so would not change the view of the NEP
> >
Any of the pole points are conceptual, and obviously not only at a large
distance, but at infinity. Therefore, by definition, the positions of any of
the poles does not change with time, as the Earth revolves around the Sun.
> > by your own admission,
> >
There is nothing to hide, therefore nothing to admit.
You are ascribing a lot of statements and motives to me, that are not mine.
I would kindly ask you to refrain from doing so in the future.
> > the stars are too far away.......This is what you so
> > eloquently stated in your point #1..which no one is arguing with...
> >
Thank you.
> > if it was
> > able to affect what we see it would only complicate not explain your
> > dilemma.
> >
I do not see that I have a dilemma.
> > I draw circle paths to give you the best possible chance to explain ..but
Hey
> > ok you want to highlight the ellipse, lets do that.
> > 4. Any ellipse is mathematically equivalent to a epicycle.
> >
An epicycle is one circle on another circle - that is a very bad approximation
to an ellipse.
> > ( circle on a
> > circle on a circle etc..) need mathematical proof?..... just ask........
and
> > any ellipse can be drawn with the proper number of circles...
> >
You can of course add as many epicycles as you want, and as you approach an
infinite number of epicycle you can approach an ellipse.
I have no idea why that is interesting when ellipses are so simple and easy
to calculate, as well as being the exact solution to the physical problem,
and being the orbits that are actually observed.
Just a quote to show the scale of my incomprehension of the reason for your
statement:
"By this [13th century] time each planet had been provided with from 40 to 60
epicycles to represent after a fashion its complex movement among the stars.
Amazed at the difficulty of the project, Alfonso is credited with the remark
that had he been present at the Creation he might have given excellent
advice."
From: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968, vol. 2, p. 645. This is identified as
the highest number in Owen Gingerich, "Alfonso X as a Patron of Astronomy,"
in The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York: American
Institute of Physics, 1993), p. 125.
As it turned out, your Creator did a much more beautiful job, and actually
had the planets travel along elliptical orbits.
> > ...but since we
> > have already agreed in principle that the real location of the axis of
> > earth's orbit as long as it lays within the diameter of earth?s orbit has
no
> > effect because stars are so far away.
> > 5. You can take the experiment i attached here as well and offset the
large
> > disk by 3% and it will still demonstrate the same rotational effect...in
fact
> > the larger the ellipse say 5 or even 6% will just exacerbate the issues not
> > make it all "go away"
> > The fact that there is elliptical orbit dose not and would change the
> > "rotational condition" of stars from the axis wobbling or not. Even if it
> > were larger for the very reasons you give. Namely the stars are too far
away
> > to have an effect on the size/ shape of the star trails for any axis/ view
of
> > the NEP from any point on the earth's orbit. (Again see attached
diagrams)..a
> > simple experiment with a camera on a circular table out of perfect round by
> > 3% will still demonstrate this effect.. So how you think explains anything
is
> > quite curious except perhaps you have never actually attempted to model
what
> > you are trying to explain......I'm quite suppressed you would even attempt
to
> > make that argument ..but oh well if you want to die on that hill...lets go
> > for it.
> >
I will address your figures by number, from above.
Fig. 1: I explicitly avoided your top ellipse in my Fig. 2, because it is
misleading, as you seem to agree on. Otherwise they are the same.
Figs. 2-3: Beautiful illustrations of Earth's daily rotation around the
equatorial axis, and translational movement along the yearly orbit.
Fig. 4: An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.
You wrote:
"[sic]even [sic]is scale [sic]were a factor this experiment
demonstrates an effect that is many several thousands of orders
of magnitude smaller..."
The only way I can interpret that is that your experiment demonstrates
an effect that is a phantazillion times smaller than the parallax
effect. I don't think you'll find funding for that. And I don't think
that's what you mean, but there is no other way of interpreting what
you wrote.
Another important part that I would like you not to miss:
============================================================================
WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS WHAT i HAVE SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED FIGURE.
LET ME CALL IT FIG. 3.
FIG. 3 SHOWS THE EARTH AT FOUR INSTANCES IN ITS ORBIT AROUND THE SUN.
THE DOTTED LINES SHOW THE ECLIPTIC AXIS POINTING TOWARDS THE ECLIPTIC POLES.
IF YOU WANT ROTATION AROUND THAT AXIS, THEN YOU WILL HAVE A YEARLY PRECESSION
OF THE DAILY ROTATION AXIS AS SHOWN BY THE DASHED LINES.
THIS IS NOT OBSERVED!
THE ORBIT AROUND THE SUN IS A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT.
TRANSLATIONAL AND ROTATIONAL MOVEMENTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.
THERE IS NO WAY OF HAVING A TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT BEHAVE/SEEM/LOOK LIKE
A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT.
THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE ECLIPTIC AXIS.
FIG. 3 IS WRONG.
FIG. 3 IS A FABRICATION BY ME TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
FIG. 3 DOES NOT AGREE WITH OBSERVATIONS.
FIG. 1 DOES AGREE WITH OBSERVATIONS (see original post).
============================================================================
> Point 4)
> Precession happens on a timescale of about 26,000 years! It is the Earth's
> spin axis that rotates around the ecliptic N/S-poles. This has no
> perceptible
> consequences for the layman (except that your horoscope is about 1 month
> off, since they were invented about 2,000 years ago...) - astronomers of
> course need to know where to point their telescopes with high precision and
> need to account for Precession.
>
> > Assuming for the sake of argument that this precession exist.....you
> > state in this very point it has no perceptible consequences ..so how is
this
> > relevant....beside even if it were true you can't demonstrate it except in
> > theory ..ahh but the theory is what is at question here ..ummmm ....so now
> > you are evoking theoretical imaginary motions that have "no consequence" on
> > what we observe for why we observe it...!?
> >
Try for once, to read what I write.
Of course precession can be measured. We wouldn't be able to find a particular
star in our telescopes if we didn't account for precession. Since precession
had been brought up earlier in the discussion, and there had been a lot of
confusion about, I thought I would explain it here.
Precession doesn't have any bearing on the daily and yearly paths of stars
across the sky. It is however, yet another problem for your geocentric view,
as I'll come back to.
You should really consider writing shorter, more concise, precise and
to-the-point posts - then it would also be easier to proof-read. It took
me far too long to get through this, and decipher what you meant, as
opposed to what you wrote. Your argument could easily have fitted in one
or two paragraphs and would have been a lot clearer for it - and my replies
would be a lot shorter too.
Thanks, though, for spending the time writing this reply to my,
admittedly lengthy, initial post.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
P.S. I have deleted the rest of my post in this reply, since you, very
reasonably, had no comments there.
Other related posts:
