[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:46:17 +1100
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I too needed to understand why Regner insisted there was no spin an the
> translational orbit of the earth.. I also said elsewhere that this was a
> difficult question, and not at all as self evident as I and others thought.
> Perhaps this selection below helps our understanding. And you can see Regner
> that it does not help your statement.....
>
I do not see that, but I'll try to clarify my points below.
> "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."
>
> and you further emphasise it again.
>
> 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.
>
> Therefore may I ask you to explain within the context of the information
> below, how a simple wheel, a rigid body which the earth sun orbit simulates,
> wherein we mark a spot on the rim, and that spot, whilst making a translation
> movement in revolution around the sun axis, also makes a simple single
> rotation in space upon itself , relative to the space surrounding it, not of
> course relative to the wheel.
>
The problem, I think, is this conceptual wheel that has been introduced.
1) If the Earth's daily rotation axis is fixed relative to the wheel, that is,
it rotates with the wheel, then you have two spin axis; the equatorial for
the daily rotation, and the ecliptic for the yearly rotation around the Sun.
This is the (fabricated) model shown in my (corrected) Fig. 3:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/gif7TS8f7TEuE.gif
(direct link to the figure).
This corresponds to a yearly precession of the daily rotation axis,
which would have to be induced by a huge torque which there is no source
for - and, of course, observations contradict this scenario.
2) If, on the other hand, the daily rotation axis is fixed in space, always
pointing in the same direction, regardless where the wheel is in it's
motion, then you have the situation of my Fig. 1 which you can find at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/jpgclJntP9KPR.jpg
This figure depicts the actual Solar system, i.e., agrees with observations.
The rotation of the daily rotation axis, with respect to the wheel, exactly
counters the rotation of the wheel, resulting in a net translational
movement around the centre of the wheel, i.e., the Sun.
Without the wheel (which isn't there anyway) you just have a simple
translational movement around the Sun.
3) The spot on the rim of the wheel is indeed translated by the rotation of
the wheel. BUT, that is because it is a (mathematical) point. If you put
an extended object, say, your coffee cup, on a disk/wheel that you can
rotate, put the handle towards the centre and rotate the wheel, then you'll
have case 1) above, i.e., NOT the Solar system equivalent.
This IS a rigid body motion of Earth + wheel.
4) If you place your coffee cup on an smaller wheel on top of the big wheel
and rotate the big wheel (Earth's orbit), while holding on to the handle
of your cup so it always points in the same direction, then you'll have
case 2) above, i.e., the Solar system equivalent.
This is NOT a rigid body motion of Earth + wheel.
I have the feeling you are trying to have both the "rigid body motion of
Earth + wheel", which does result in two rotation axis, as well as keeping
the Earth's daily rotation axis fixed in space.
These two cases (1 & 3 vs. 2 & 4) are mutually exclusive.
There is nothing controversial in all the (equivalent) definitions of
rotational and translational movements, that you have dug up, and I
completely agree with them (okay, I didn't read ALL of them...).
> In particular I ask, isn't this,
>
Looks like something was accidentally deleted here..?..
> A translation can also be interpreted as the addition of a constant vector to
> every point, or as shifting the origin of the coordinate system. just a
> convenient manipulation?
>
That is absolutely correct.
> Philip.
Kind regards,
Regner
>
> wiki said,
> "All rigid body movements are rotations, translations, or combinations of the
> two. However, a rotation around a point or axis and a rotation around a
> different point/axis may result in something other than a rotation, e.g. a
> translation."
>
> In Euclidean geometry, a translation is moving every point a constant
> distance in a specified direction. It is one of the rigid motions (other
> rigid motions include rotation and reflection). A translation can also be
> interpreted as the addition of a constant vector to every point, or as
> shifting the origin of the coordinate system.
>
>
>
> "A rotation is a movement of an object in a circular motion. A
> two-dimensional object rotates around a center (or point) of rotation. A
> three-dimensional object rotates around a line called an axis. If the axis of
> rotation is within the body, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or
> spin-which implies relative speed and perhaps free-movement with angular
> momentum. A circular motion about an external point, e.g. the Earth about the
> Sun, is called an orbit or more properly an orbital revolution.
>
> Main article: Rotation (mathematics)
> Rotation of a planar figure around a point
> Mathematically, a rotation is, unlike a translation, a rigid body movement
> which keeps a point fixed. This definition applies to rotations within both
> two and three dimensions (in a plane and in space, respectively.) A rotation
> in three-dimensional space keeps an entire line fixed, i.e. a rotation in
> three-dimensional space is a rotation around an axis. This follows from
> Euler's rotation theorem.
>
> All rigid body movements are rotations, translations, or combinations of the
> two.
>
> If a rotation around a point or axis is followed by a second rotation around
> the same point/axis, a third rotation results. The reverse (inverse) of a
> rotation is also a rotation. Thus, the rotations around a point/axis form a
> group. However, a rotation around a point or axis and a rotation around a
> different point/axis may result in something other than a rotation, e.g. a
> translation.
>
> The principal axes of rotation in space
> Rotations around the x, y and z axes are called principal rotations. Rotation
> around any axis can be performed by taking a rotation around the x axis,
> followed by a rotation around the y axis, and followed by a rotation around
> the z axis. That is to say, any spatial rotation can be decomposed into a
> combination of principal rotations.
>
> See also: curl, cyclic permutation, Euler angles, rigid body, rotation
> around a fixed axis, rotation group, rotation matrix, axis angle, quaternion,
> and isometry
>
> [edit] Astronomy
> In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and
> similar bodies all spin around on their axes (the plural of axis). The
> rotation rate of planets in the solar system was first measured by tracking
> visual features. Stellar rotation is measured through Doppler shift or by
> tracking active surface features.
>
> This rotation induces a centrifugal acceleration which slightly counteracts
> the effect of gravity the closer one is to the equator. One effect is that an
> object weighs slightly less at the equator. Another is that the Earth is
> slightly deformed into an oblate spheroid.
>
> Another consequence of the rotation of a planet is the phenomenon of
> precession. Like a gyroscope, the overall effect is a slight "wobble" in the
> movement of the axis of a planet. Currently the tilt of the Earth's axis to
> its orbital plane (obliquity of the ecliptic) is 23.45 degrees, but this
> angle changes slowly (over thousands of years). (See also Precession of the
> equinoxes and Pole star.)
>
>
> [edit] Rotation and revolution
> Main article: Orbital revolution
> While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields,
> particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as
> orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another
> while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis. Moons revolve
> about their planet, planets revolve about their star (such as the Earth
> around the Sun); and stars slowly revolve about their galaxial center. The
> motion of the components of galaxies is complex, but it usually includes a
> rotation component.
>
> The Moon makes one complete rotation during one complete orbital revolution
> around the Earth (an effect called tidal locking) so that the same side of
> the Moon always faces the Earth (the other side is called the far side of the
> Moon).
>
>
> [edit] Retrograde rotation
> Main article: Retrograde motion#Retrograde rotation
> Most planets in our solar system, including Earth, spin in the same direction
> as they orbit the Sun. The exceptions are Venus and Uranus. Uranus rotates
> nearly on its side relative to its orbit. Current speculation is that Uranus
> started off with a typical prograde orientation and was knocked on its side
> by a large impact early in its history. Venus may be thought of as rotating
> slowly backwards (or being "upside down"). The dwarf planet Pluto (formerly
> considered a planet) is anomalous in this and other ways.
>
>
> [edit] Physics
> Main article: Angular momentum
> The speed of rotation is given by the angular frequency (rad/s) or frequency
> (turns/s, turns/min), or period (seconds, days, etc.). The time-rate of
> change of angular frequency is angular acceleration (rad/sē), This change is
> caused by torque. The ratio of the two (how heavy is it to start, stop, or
> otherwise change rotation) is given by the moment of inertia.
>
> The angular velocity vector also describes the direction of the axis of
> rotation. Similarly the torque is a vector.
>
> According to the right-hand rule, the direction away from the observer is
> associated with clockwise rotation and the direction towards the observer
> with counterclockwise rotation, like a screw.
>
> See also: rotational energy, angular velocity, centrifugal force,
> centripetal force, circular motion, circular orbit, Coriolis effect, spin
> (physics), rotational spectroscopy, and Rigid body dynamics#Rigid body
> angular momentum
>
> [edit] Aviation
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Regner Trampedach
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:47 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
>
>
>
> Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > 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 <art@xxxxxxxxxx> 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...
>
> > 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.
>
> ============================================================================
>
> > ...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.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1127 - Release Date:
> 12/11/2007 9:19 PM
>
Other related posts:
