[geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:29:30 +1100
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Regner,
> You don't get it...every 24 hours midnight the earth is in a radial
> postion to the ecliptic axis by definition.
>
That is a statement with zero information content.
Any two points are on a straight line!
Your statement is valid at all times.
We are not talking about the position, though, but the orientation of
the Earth and of its daily rotational axis.
The orbit around the Sun is translational and has NO rotation.
On top if that, you have the daily rotation around the celestial axis.
You are still talking about the bead-on-a-wire scenario - which is wrong.
Please, please, please, read my earlier replies to you.
I have tried to explain it to you in so many different ways.
Regner
> There is no argument that can
> calim that this rotational effect could not be observed if we know when that
> condtion exist to record it!. The whole point of my diagram was to show that
> any path around a axis will demonstrate a rotaional effect stra trial if the
> camera records the radial oreintaion to the axis..How in the world can this
> be so hard for you!?
>
>
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You still don't get it.
> You and I were not describing the Earth.
> You showed me a model, equivalent of a bead on a wire, where
> the wire is the "orbit" of the bead. With that model you get one
> rotation, per revolution.
> THAT IS NOT A MODEL OF THE EARTH'S ORBIT AROUND THE SUN.
> If that was what happened to Earth, then you would have a yearly
> precession of the daily rotational axis around the ecliptic axis,
> which uis silly for theoretical and observational reasons!
>
> Allen, you are obnoxious and childish
> "Now bring it on in for the big win big guy..... :-) "
> Cut it out!
>
> Regner
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
>
> Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> > The great circle is only a circle due to a rotational motion. a rotaional
> > motion exist on the ecliptic axis as well for the reasons you gave in your
> > last post......However, the camera can point to any direction you want to
> > point it to on the celestial sphere...!? By definition of 24 hours, the
> > camera is in a radial position to the axis in question (ecliptic)
> > particularly if you point your camera to 23.44 degrees offset from Polaris
> > now the camera is parallels to the ecliptic axis ( all parallel views of
> the
> > ecliptic are equivalent) ...........The other key issue you are
> overlooking
> > is you do not even have to point a camera in the direction of a rotation
> to
> > see it. The nightly proves that fact!
> >
> >
> > Regner Trampedach wrote: Allen,
> > The camera will NOT point to another point along a great circle around
> > the ECLIPTIC pole,
> > it WILL point to another point on the 23.5' great circle around
> > the CELESTIAL pole!
> > This means rotation around the celestial pole!
> > Look at the figure again - the two instances are symmetric around the
> > daily rotational axis of Earth - the axis pointing to the celestial poles.
> >
> > - Regner
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> > -
> >
> >
> > Quoting Allen Daves :
> >
> > > Congratulations Paul !.
> > >
> > > Your diagram shows and just proved that if the earth did in fact go
> around
> > > the sun according to HC then the fixed camera focused ~parallel to the
> > > ecliptic (north or south) axis, over the course of six moths will be
> > pointing
> > > in a entirely different direction and thus looking a different stars in
> a
> > > different ecliptic latitude of the celestial sphere in the sky ( not
> just
> > > different stars on the same ecliptic latitude) A wopping 24 degrees in a
> > > different direction altogether with entirly different stars ....NOW GO
> DO
> > > THAT AN SEE IF THAT EVER HAPPENS IN REALITY........hint....IT DOES
> NOT!!!
> > > .........Paul, I knew you were a closet geocentrist all the time.....:-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Deema
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings interested parties!
> > > Comments in this colour
> > > From j a Wed Nov 14 20:45:30 2007
> > > What Paul is saying is the same thing I've been trying to get across. An
> > > ally! When attempting to record an annual trail; as the camera moves to
> > the
> > > next photo op it also gets tilted by the rotation on the nightly axis.
> > > Tilting the camera for the next photo alters where any particular star
> > will
> > > fall on the photo plate. Surley you must see how altering the camera
> angle
> > > while collecting for a single trail (whether nightly or annual) would
> > alter
> > > the trail?
> > > From j a Wed Nov 14 21:49:52 2007
> > > Didn't we determine that 23'56" was the proper time to record the annual
> > > star trail and that at 24hours we would not record a star trail? NO 24
> > hours
> > > exposures.. Sorry -- this time Allen got it right!
> > > From Allen Daves Wed Nov 14 23:43:00 2007
> > > I think I understand what you are getting at now..?...........Allen! Can
> > > I truly stop trying now?
> > >
> > > Well I've got a picture for you all anyway. Please tell me if you don't
> > > understand this.
> > > Paul D
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
