[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth? supplemental
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:34:01 +1100
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> See attached 2 diagrams...Don't everyone get all up in a uproar if you don't
> understand, then this may just be more info then you need. However, this is
> for those few who think that since no "rotation" exist in the earths orbit,
> therefore we could not observer or detect any kind of a rotational effects
> .....Regner appears to be such a fellow.. :-)
>
Correct!
I predict that if there is no rotation, we will observe no rotation!
I believe your first figure depicts something like a bead on a curved wire.
That means the orientation of the bead follows the direction of the wire,
which means the bead will have rotated by about 180' between entering and
leaving your set-up.
The net movement if you start at the left, is a rotation by 180' clockwise
AND a translation from left to right.
- Regner
> 1. I show you dont need any "rotataion" to observer a "rotaional effect" as
> long as the net postions recorded are equivilent to the ones found in a
> rotaional motion.
>
> 2. I show that thoes certain nessiary conditons do exist for the earth even
> in a "translated" motion of earth's orbit...
>
> The conditions are quite simple:
> A. A camera ( it does not matter if it is fixed year around or not for the
> very reasons i discuss here.) that is oriented parallel to any axis will not
> be affected by any amount of latitude along that axis.
> B.As long as the camera is oriented radialy to any axis in question
>
> If those two conditions exist then in all cases the camera will record the
> net effects of a rotational motion.
>
> The point here is to show that there is no meaningful way ( certainly
> none as of yet demonstrated or explained) to assert that the earth orbits the
> sun, even in a (translated orbit) and yet has no "net effect" of "rotation"
> that could be observed meaningfully by an observer here on the earth..
>
>
>
> I wonder if I'm gonna regret this as much as my gut tells me I will...LOL
> :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Your a closet Geocentrist aren?t you? :-)
>
>
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Quoting Neville Jones :
> >
> > Dear Regner,
> >
> > The point of the two diagrams was that each illustrate two types of
> motion,
> > depending upon how you view them.
> >
> > In particular, the camera is always fixed to an immovable mount, and it is
> > the World itself that moves.
> >
> > In Camera movement 2 negative.gif, attached again for your convenience, we
> > have the essence of the two-axis argument.
> >
> > View it one way, and the optical axis of the camera always points toward
> the
> > celestial polar axis,
> >
> Which is not what the figure shows, but I assume you ask me to imagine the
> cameras pointed towards me (towards a celestial pole).
>
> > irrespective of the time increments. This explains what
> > we see, night after night, hour after hour, minute by minute, whether
> > sidereal or solar.
> >
> Again the figure shows increments of Solar days, but I'll imagine what
> happens on all time-scales.
>
> > View it another way and the optical axis always points
> > toward the ecliptic polar axis
> >
> No - it can't, because the two axes are not parallel.
> You drawing is a bit misleading in that way, as I pointed out before
> - the daily rotation occurs in a different plane from the yearly
> translational movement around the Sun.
>
> The Rotation on each axis is independent of the other axis we only need a/
> any radial conditon around any/ either of the two axis to create star
> trails..How and why you think they need to take place in the same plane or
> the fact they don't take place in the same plane is somehow relevant for what
> we should observe is somewhat baffling.
>
> > (with the proviso, of course, that we tilt the
> > paper, because the celestial and ecliptic axes are not coincident),
> >
> But with that tilt, you seem to imply that the equatorial plane suddenly
> aligns with the ecliptic plane - that is a pretty selective tilt.
>
> Again the rotation on both axis exist on two independent planes that
> intesect the observer on the earth. Never the less, and in any case, it makes
> no difference! If there was no spin on the nightly axis the plane of the
> ecliptic would not change oreintaion nor would it affect the rotational
> conditon of either axis. The point here is that spin or no spin on the
> celestial axis is irrelevant for what takes place on the ecliptic axis. The
> two motions do not depend nor are they capable of negating each other.
>
> I you have such powers, I might change profession :-)
> The cameras seem to be mounted on the Earth's equator (doesn't make
> any difference but makes for simpler explanation).
> With your figures and your explanations, the camera is then either
> pointing along
> a) the equatorial plane extending out from the Earth (as shown on
> your figure) or
> b) the axis of Earth's daily rotation = celestial axis, which
> by definition is just perpendicular to the plane of case a).
> When you tilt the paper, you also tilt the equatorial plane by the
> same amount - which means it doesn't change anything.
>
> With a camera on a fixed mount on Earth, with the camera pointed at a
> particular angle with respect to the celestial pole, the camera will
> only see that same great circle around the celestial pole.
>
> No a camera offset 23.44o to the celestial axis will alway be parallel to
> the ecliptic axis all day long. The key point you fail to appreciate however,
> is that this conditon every 24 hours places the camera in the exact same and
> thus defacto "rotational position" around the ecliptic axis every night and
> over the course of a year. Even if you want to quible about the termonology
> of "rotation", the fact is that in that position every 24 hours that camera
> is in the exact same geometric configuration/ postion it would be if it
> "really" were in "rotation" no matter how you wish to define it. The plane of
> the Rotaion is irrelevant.
>
> The movement recorded at fixed Solar time over a year, will be the
> same as that recorded over a single day, as I have stated before.
>
> That is what we see Yes, however, this does not explain why that is all we
> see.
>
> You can of course point your camera at the ecliptic pole and taking
> pictures every sidereal day you'll keep seeing the ecliptic pole.
>
> Yes every 23h 56 min you are correct!
>
> You'll in fact, see that same spot around the ecliptic pole, with
> the exact same orientation - it will not rotate during the year.
>
> That fact is not in dispute. What you have thus far failed to address is
> the condition of a camera on 24 hour intervals extending radialy and parallel
> to the annual axis... (the same geometic configuration/ postion as would
> exist in a state of rotataion regaurdless of how you define "rotation" or if
> "real roation" exist or not)
>
> At any other times, however, you'll see other parts of the great
> circle at 23.4' from the pole.
> The pole can, of course, be either the North or the South pole.
>
> > each24-mean-solar-hour step.
> > This explains what we should see (but do not), for
> > exactly the same reason.
> >
> It is a simple misunderstanding.
>
> > In the first viewing mode, the large circle is the World, with the centre
> of
> > the World at the centre. In the second viewing mode, the small circles
> > represent individual positions of the World, with the large circle being
> the
> > World's alleged orbit and the centre of the diagram being the centre of
> the
> > Sun. (The slight eccentricity of the orbit is not relevant to this
> > discussion.)
> >
> Okay.
>
> > Note that the camera can be rotating about the celestial axis daily, but
> > still align its optical axis with the ecliptic polar axis at tropical day
> > increments.
> >
> Exactly as I wrote above :-)
>
> > The only difference we should expect to see between the two sets
> > of star trails is that the annual ones would be only roughly circular.
> >
> But, this, I'm afraid, is where you err. As I also wrote above:
> "At any other times, however, you'll see other parts of the great
> circle at 23.4' from the pole."
> There will be no star trails around the ecliptic pole.
>
> Your stating your position eloquently and emphatically, but your not
> demonstrating the point, your merely asserting it. You assume this is
> true.You are in effect only explaining what we observe in reality. You are
> not addressing why we can't see the annual, ecept to say that since it is not
> observable then it is there but only cannot be seen!? In so doing, you are
> ignoring the key issues (and the fact that somehow a smaller rotation is
> masking a much larger rotation but you can't explain why it is not the larger
> one that is not masking the smaller one.) If you model this you will see that
> what you describe is untenable and everything just as we have described would
> in fact present secondary/annual star trails. A simple experiment with a
> camera and using the real celestial pole will demonstrate this for you. You
> cannot have a transnational motion or any motion around a axis on a sphere
> and not have a point of rotation around that axis.
> Regards,
>
> Regner
>
> Dont worry i'll keep your secret..:-)
>
> Allen
>
> > Neville
> > www.GeocentricUniverse.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: art@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:20:47 +1100
> >
> > Quoting Neville Jones
> > >
> > > Regner,
> > >
> > > Thank you. And I accept your inference that the orbit, at this
> inclination,
> > > ought strictly to be elliptical.
> > >
> > Okay, so the axis perpendicular to the screen is the daily rotation axis
> > of the Earth, and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun should be
> > foreshortened
> > by the 23.4' angle between that axis and the ecliptic axis.
> >
> > > However, there is a second interpretation of the figure. That this does
> not
> > > depict one camera, but 16 cameras scattered around the World, all with
> > their
> > > optical axes parallel with the celestial polar axis.
> > >
> > Okay - so all the cameras are pointed at the viewer of your figure?
> > And each of the 16 instances of Earth, has 16 cameras mounted,
> equidistantly
> > on the equator?
> > That is not a different view of the same thing - that's a different
> > scenario.
> >
> > > In this case, the time
> > > intervals, for rotation about the celestial polar axis (in the plane of
> the
> > > paper/screen), can be sidereal or solar. Agreed?
> > >
> > The time intervals between the 16 instances of Earth that you depicted in
> > your
> > two figures? They are obviously unaffected by where you put a
> camera...?...
> > I don't think I quite get your question.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Regner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Get Free 5GB Email â?? Check out spam free email with many cool features!
> >
> > Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
