[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth? supplemental
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:17:16 +1100
If he takes a picture in the radial direction at various locations along
the curved path, then the photographer has performed
A ROTATION + A TRANSLATION
If his orientation in space does not stay the same, then, per definition,
he has performed a rotation. It is that simple.
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> You realy did not read that at all did you....I said regardless of the path
> (translational directional) if the observer takes the photo in a radial
> postion ( this is the contion of the earth every 24 hours) he will most
> certainly see a Rotaion...We are not going to be abel to get anywhere untill
> you are able to grasp this....Please let me know what you do not
> understand.....
>
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> > 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 wrote:
> >
> > Your a closet Geocentrist aren?t you? :-)
> >
> >
> > Regner Trampedach 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:
