[geocentrism] rotation part 1
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
A position that travels or not with the earth’s supposed orbit yet not in
translation with the earth should very clearly be able to demonstrate any
rotation around the sun wrt the back ground stars which are “fixed” assuming it
exist. stars in tanslation around the earth is only observaly equivilent from
the earth it is not mechanicaly equivilent! This is to say that if the earth
is orbitin the sun that is not the same as the sun just moving slower then
everything else in the sky...even if the stars were doining some translation it
could only give an equivilent appearnce from the earth under HC conditions but
If HC is right Equivilent observations cannot hide a real rotaional motion as
long as we dont attmept to observe it from the earth's assumed position.
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: rotation part 1
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 7:55 AM
Phil,
Don't assume you know where i'm going with all this....you are only confusing
yourself..
Im not trying to prove a motion i do not belive exist.!.I do not belive a
translation any translation exist period! whether it exist or not is somewhat
moot.......i'm not nor have i ever tried to show the difference between earth
in transltion to sun v universe in translation to earth....those two are
equivilent and the distance is only relitive to that issue ..Im not addressing
that....Im going to show t the nature of the relative motions of any two bodies
(earth sun or earth universe) can only be visualized from a third position
which is external of the two bodies and thus the relative motion of that third
position must be taken into account. ..you say no thrid positions exist...well
it has to on paper you are confusing the conceptuailization with the reality of
the motion.......yes a third obtainable position does exist and in reality
!!!...The earth is not the only position from where we can know is not in
translation around the sun
nor having the universe translate around it....it is obtainable and thus we
can determin a orbit around the sun or not....... ..but i do want to lay out
some fundimentals first...
1. two different systems. under consideration:...
First (the HC/GC equivilent) either the earth translates around the sun or the
uiverse translates around the earth. there is absolutly no reason for this
motion!? paralax does not suppor this perid because there is negative paralax
as well..thus there is absoluly no reason for this construct
or
Second: a universe that goes around the earth but does not translate around the
earth.
It is posible to detmine if this translational motion exist in the first
place either around the earth or earth around the sun. If the earth is not
translating around the sun or visa versa then the first one would not and is
not equivilent to the second! The observable differences between equivilent and
non equivilent motions is what im after, not the differences between equivilent
translational motions.... if that translational motion exist then i know we
could not distinguish the translation of the universe v the translation of the
earth....that was never ever what i was after either!
2. "translation is not a majic word nor does it make everything
disapear.....It can only affect the relitive observable motion between any two
bodies but any third observitory is not bound to the effects of the relitive
motion between those two bodies!....yes a third postion does exist...and it
does not have to translate around the sun and we can know that the universe
does not translate around it and it is vertualy in the same exact spot as the
earth
Further, if you stop and think about your diagram any orbit is itself a
translation ( the axis is point in the same direction wrt the back ground
stars....so what there is still a rotational equivilent from one of the other
bodies.........i'm not trying to argue the effects of the earth in translation
around the sun v the universe in translation around the earth!......but a
translation any translation still has a rotational effect wrt a third body if
it exist
Again, any camera rotating wrt any object including real stars will show a
rotataion.....yes the earth is said to have a translational orbit..but a
translational orbit has a relitive equivilent motion which has the external
observer spining!...... ....... I'm addresing and identifying the nature of
relative motions and the fact that relative motion of any two bodies can only
be visualized from a third position which is external of the two bodies and
thus the relative motion of that third position must be taken into
account... ..it is not nearly as obvious as it may first appear.... but we have
the sun the earth and the universe....in the HC/GC equivilent we have either
the earth sun....or earth universe in translation....since the earth is common
to both we need a thrid postion that we know is not traslating around the sun
and we know is not translating with the universe....does such a postion exist
either naturaly or artificaly....yes!
Again I'm not caliming nor have i ever claimed that thoes two translational
motions which are equivilent can be distinquished...however, if there is no
translational orbit then you do not have equivilent motions in the systems and
thus we could make a determintion if that is not the case, because they are not
equivilent.
We will get to the "imagination parts" latter after we establish the nature of
equivilent motions and their effects....but even when we do get to the
imagination parts Im hoping to have a real and viable experiment to perform so
as to make a determination between the two proposed systems...
--- On Sat, 9/20/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: rotation part 1
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 7:58 PM
You are missing the fact that motion is relitive. It matters not what is in
real motion or not...stars or camera......any scale of a rotaion will produce a
real rotaional effect every time...please explain your objections using
somthing real not just imagined talking points...a camera at any scale will
show a rotational effect if it is in rotation!.. guys that is science,
demonstratable and reproducable at any scale every time using real stars ...!?
What you fail to realise is that in MS all motion is purly relitive that is to
say the roation of a camera is equivilent in every way including any/ all
effects as the universe in roation around a fixed camera.......scale has
nothing to do with rotational effects!!!!!.. This is a undisputed fact guys!...
Any camera that rotates ever wrt the real stars will produce a rotaion!.. What
in the world are you talking about!?...go outside and see for your self!..
quite using your imagination and start applying real
world atestable pplications....
--- On Sat, 9/20/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: rotation part 1
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 4:39 PM
YES, Im already fully aware of ALL the previous as well as
possible objections allen
being aware of them and comprehending them are two different things.
Allen if I were to try to make a real to scale model of your plan I would
have to make the head of a pin to represent the 180 million mile diameter of
your orbit, with the camera on the edge of the pin, and place your star another
smaller pin a pinpoint light 1000 miles away on the other side of the
continent, and still its not far enough to be true, but it is far enough to
show how your camera rotating around the head of a pin will not resolve
anything. ie.. the picture produced would be unchanged rotating or
stationary..Its a matter of scale. phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] rotation part 1
I sent this 12 hours aago and still have not seen it even in the archives...i
think the internet is slowwwww....
I want to start with this which is parts 1 &2 of 12.......I still need the
PDEEMA diagram...but i will get to it latter
The basic issue before us is what if any effects should we see given the HC
construct...
I want to start by focusing attention on these two diagrams....it demonstrates
that in a Universe where everything is just relitive motion (that if in fact
all motion is just relitive) then it follows that a translational motion/orbit
of one body must produce a equivilent efect as a spin/ orbit in some other
body. The reason this must hold true for a truly relitive universe where all
motion is just relitive motion is that any external observer will see a
translation as nothing more then a spin in the opisite direction of the
translational orbit without respect for the motion since the motion is purely
relitive we can't be sure what is in "real motion" thus we cant be sure what is
spining and what is translating...in a translation one body is spining in the
opisite direction that the other body is translating in.....you have to think
and see both motions simoltaniously they my be relitive but one is doing one
thing and the other is doing somthing
different wrt any external observer.........distance is irrelevant for any and
all rotational effecst because every rotation or spin will demonstrate the
effects if a rotation if it truly exist at all. This is demonstrated by the
fact that a camera in rotation will produce the effects wrt real
stars....Thus: if the effects do not exist then either.......... ..i will leave
this blank for now in hope of some thought provoking discussion.......consider
these things carefully..
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
EUREKA!!......A translational orbit still produces a rotational effect!...The
punch line is ....
1. the axis of the rotation shifts from the body that is being orbited to the
center of the body in the translational orbit....
2. It reverses the effects of the rotational effects. That is to say that a
clockwise orbit will produce counter clockwise rotational impression on
film where if the translational orbit is clockwise then the rotational effects
on film will be clockwise!..
The fact that the earth's has a translational orbit around the sun cannot and
will not hide a rotation around the NCP which is offset from the nightly NEP by
23 degrees.. YES, Im already fully aware of ALL the previous as well as
possible objections.....i was able to isolate each and every single
one.........I have now found the way to prove it as well as demonstrate how it
can be accomplished in the real world ......The solution is remarkably
"simple" but extremely hard to visualize due to the complexities of the
kinematics........If you imagine a set of crosshairs they have a up/ down equal
distant mark as well as a left and right equal distant mark....The trick is
understanding that the back and fourth motion of the sun by 23 degrees annually
is nothing more then up/down deviations from that up/down center mark.....The
key is as long as the right/ left center mark does not deviate we can still get
our rotation around a axis that lay parallel
to a axis that is perpendicular and runs through the suns (ecliptic
deviation/ path) since it lay perpendicular to the up/down centerline on our
cross hairs, because it lays 23 degrees offset ..this is true because any
rotation around the sun or ecliptic is not dependent on the north south
deviation of the sun/ecliptic ..the rotation & it’s effects are around a axis
that lay perpendicular to that deviation. Yes we have to have a camera that
does not move with respect to that ecliptic deviation….I will show but we
should already know exactly how to accomplish that… .......the proof is quite
detailed i will lay out the fundamentals bit by bit so we don’t get confused by
all the motions........I plan to submit some diagrams and photos
eventually...using real stars and demonstrating exactly how it was done...but
the key is a translational motion will still produce a rotation on the NCP
.....The rub is, I kept trying to tell you guys that the
clue was “hidden” in that “most powerful definition of rotation known to man”
....In fact, It would have to produce a rotational effect in order for all of
the motions to be "equivalent"!.............. Oh, what fun I am going to have
now.....”Destruction” and “chaos” the likes of which have not been seen since
the Renaissance itself..& ..It won’t take me any 400 years either!
Other related posts:
