DAILY 4 SEASONS - END OF HELIOCENTRIC MODEL

Yes, the equatorial axis is always perpendicular to the polar axis.

Draw the lines as you wish. The author also wants to present the aloft axis and differentiate it clearly from the equatorial axis.

No matter how you draw the lines, the fact remains that equatorial and ecliptic axes alternate their orientation from their previous position for 90 degrees every 6 hours.

 

Did I ever say that the Earth rotates about the OP and not the polar axis?

The orbital perpendicular is parallel to the ecliptic polar axis(NEP) and perpendicular to the ecliptic axis.

Sorry, I confused the reply button with the edit one 

Ok so please explan why they aren't in figures D and B.

Yes, the equatorial axis is always perpendicular to the polar axis.

Draw the lines as you wish. The author also wants to present the aloft axis and differentiate it clearly from the equatorial axis.

No matter how you draw the lines, the fact remains that equatorial and ecliptic axes alternate their orientation from their previous position for 90 degrees every 6 hours.

I gave you an image earlier in the thread in which is doesn't.  Your version involves the entire earth, polar axis and all, rotating around something other than said polar axis.  As demonstrated in your own image, here:

Also I hope you understand that I couldnt keep polar axis fixed in this representation, so I didnt draw any polar axis. Its better to imagine that you are the Sun and you go round the Earth.  Imagine that you are the Sun and see the Earth from your screen. Point U is then turned not towards the left of the image, but turned towards you who watch the screen.

If feel you can better convey it in image form, go ahead.  Take thirty minutes of your life to completely disprove a heliocentric solar system.  But this explains what you're trying to say happens in a day fairly well, and is simply wrong.  From the perspective of the sun, this is the earth over the course of it's orbit.  Not daily rotation.

Do you really believe that a scientist that has examined heliocentrism from his deep roots, in a book through hundreds of mechanical figures, has made such a simple mistake as the one you imagine?

Yes.  Dr. Rowbotham makes similarly simple mistakes in Earth Not a Globe in his interpretation of projectile motion.  Whether they are honest misunderstandings or deliberate misrepresentations are another matter.

Did I ever say that the Earth rotates about the OP and not the polar axis?

The orbital perpendicular is parallel to the ecliptic polar axis(NEP) and perpendicular to the ecliptic axis.

You didn't directly say it, but you made an animation that shows the polar axis rotating about the OP perpendicular axis.  It takes the earth a little more than 365 days to rotate about that axis in relation to the Sun.  It takes the earth essentially 24 hours to rotate about its polar axis.  Maybe you're combining the geocentric and heliocentric models and trying to argue from an orbiting but nonrotating earth in which the day and night cycle are caused by the earth's orbit about the Sun in a 24 hour time period?

Do you really believe that a scientist that has examined heliocentrism from his deep roots, in a book through hundreds of mechanical figures, has made such a simple mistake as the one you imagine?

Yes, and it is not a question of belief. The rotational model he shows for the Earth is quite clearly incorrect.

Are you sure you have correctly understood heliocentric model? Maybe give another try and study this figure again? Could it be that you have forgotten the Earth is tilted 23.5 from the ecliptic and at the same time aligned in the ecliptic plane

I understand the heliocentric model very well, as I do the rotational model of the Earth. No further study of Dr Shaban's diagrams is required. I deal with these concepts every time I want to plan what astronomical objects I want to observe or image over the upcoming year.

through a vicious 3 to 1 circle? Could it be that heliocentrists wanted to make 3 circles by one circle without shaking the ecliptic plane of the rigid Earth through daily rotation and annual revolution?.

Vicious 3 to 1 circle? Shaking the ecliptic plane? Sorry, but this sounds like nonsense to me.

Also do you know that we're talking about a 3d and not 2d representation?

Yes I do.

If points E and W are wrong, show where they should be then.

I did not state that points E and W are wrong. I stated that the plane of the Earth's rotation is described by the points E, W, Zenith and Nadir which sit on the Equator. Describing the rotation using Upper and Lower, which do not exist on the plane of rotation is stupendously wrong.

This is the how the earth rotates:
[/URL]


Ta Ta

That's an excellent animation dephelis, may I ask, what software did you use?

That's an excellent animation dephelis, may I ask, what software did you use?

Thanks, it was made with Adobe Photoshop CS2 as I couldn't remember how to use blender. I ran out time and didn't render the plane of the ecliptic as I did for the tropical and the equatorial planes but it is sufficient for the purposes of this thread.

The original diagram of the book is correct. Try to make it by having three rods and each rod represents one axis of the Earth. It needs some concentration

It isnt right to judge a whole book because of a detail you find wrong(no matter if its right or wrong).  Are the heliocentrists scientists you believe perfect and never erroneous?

Here is the whole 2nd chapter of the book on  pressure, gravity and rotation.

https://rapidshare.com/files/2202525558/Verses%20of%20Deus%20-%20Knockdown%20of%20Heliocentric%20Model%20series%201%20excerpt.rar

Im sorry Dephelis but no matter how good your animation was, its in error.

U and L belong in the ecliptic axis. You rotate them outside the ecliptic.

It would be better to make AXES (not just their points) and rotate them.

As I said the original image of the book is correct. Try to make it with 3 rods each one representing one axis of the Earth. Concentration  needed.

The original diagram of the book is correct. Try to make it by having three rods and each rod represents one axis of the Earth. It needs some concentration

Iin figures D and B, the east-west axis is not perpendicular to North-West axis. Do you agree ?

It isnt right to judge a whole book because of a detail you find wrong(no matter if its right or wrong).

I agree, I'm not judging the book.

Im sorry Dephelis but no matter how good your animation was, its in error.

U and L belong in the ecliptic axis. You rotate them outside the ecliptic.

If this is why you think the heliocentric model has 4 seasons in one day, then you do not understand what causes seasons.

dephelis' animation is an exact representation of the heliocentric model, with the points all fixed to the surface of the earth as they should be. The earth rotates around the polar axis, exactly as shown.

I really think you should study the heliocentric model more closely, as I get the distinct impression that you really don't understand how it works.

It would be better to make AXES (not just their points) and rotate them.

As I said the original image of the book is correct. Try to make it with 3 rods each one representing one axis of the Earth. Concentration  needed.

What's this 3 axes business? The earth only has one axis; the polar axis about which it rotates. If you were to take 3 rods and fix them to each other, you would simply end up reproducing dephelis' animation when you rotate the model on it's polar axis.

It isnt right to judge a whole book because of a detail you find wrong(no matter if its right or wrong).  Are the heliocentrists scientists you believe perfect and never erroneous?

Here is the whole 2nd chapter of the book on  pressure, gravity and rotation.

https://rapidshare.com/files/2202525558/Verses%20of%20Deus%20-%20Knockdown%20of%20Heliocentric%20Model%20series%201%20excerpt.rar

The book is titled 'Verses of Deus, First Series: The Knockdown of the heliocentric model'. The author is incorrectly representing the heliocentric model. That provides a very reasonable indicator of the quality of the book. Dr Shaban would also be well served by finding someone to proof-read and edit his text, as well as keeping his language unbiased. For example, when did Copernicus undergo gender reassignment and change his name to Nicole?

It would have been more appropriate to send the first chapter on his 'unbiased review of the heliocentric model' and/or the fourth chapter where he 'reveals the first secret of the heliocentric model'. They would have been more relevant to this topic.

Im sorry Dephelis but no matter how good your animation was, its in error.

U and L belong in the ecliptic axis. You rotate them outside the ecliptic.

It would be better to make AXES (not just their points) and rotate them.

As I said the original image of the book is correct. Try to make it with 3 rods each one representing one axis of the Earth. Concentration  needed.

Yes, you do need to concentrate.

1. We are discussing the daily rotation of the Earth and whether it results in seasons.
2. The Earth has a single axis of rotation, the polar axis.
3. A plane of rotation is perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
4. The plane of rotation of the Earth is defined by the axes Zenith-Nadir and E-W.
5. The plane of the ecliptic is not perpendicular to the axis of rotation, therefore;
6. U and L do not form an axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation, therefore;
7. U and L will not remain on the plane of the ecliptic during the daily rotation of the Earth.
8. If U and L do not rotate on the plane of the ecliptic during the daily rotation of the Earth there can not be four seasons in day.

Toodles

Im sorry Dephelis but no matter how good your animation was, its in error.

U and L belong in the ecliptic axis. You rotate them outside the ecliptic.

It would be better to make AXES (not just their points) and rotate them.

As I said the original image of the book is correct. Try to make it with 3 rods each one representing one axis of the Earth. Concentration  needed.

Why do you want to make axes where there are none? The N-S axis is the only important one, that's what the Earth rotates around. E-W axes are totally arbitrary anyway, you could define infinitely many. However they'd all be in the plane of rotation, which is perpendicular to the N-S axis, so I don't see any point in this.

And how is the original image correct? The Earth does not rotate that way. Clearly the author is mistaken, or is just trying to confuse the issue.

There are at least 7 major axes.

Polar Axis and Equatorial Axis - Horizon plane
Equatorial Axis and Aloft Axis - Equatorial plane
Polar Axis and Aloft Axis - Meridian plane
Ecliptic Axis and Equatorial Axis - Ecliptic plane
Anti-Ecliptic Axis and Equatorial Axis - Anti-ecliptic plane

Also ETA(equator towards anticlockwise) Axis and ETC(equator toward clockwise) Axis

Its incosistent to describe the cosmos motion with only one or two axes.

There are at least 7 major axes.

Polar Axis and Equatorial Axis - Horizon plane
Equatorial Axis and Aloft Axis - Equatorial plane
Polar Axis and Aloft Axis - Meridian plane
Ecliptic Axis and Equatorial Axis - Ecliptic plane
Anti-Ecliptic Axis and Equatorial Axis - Anti-ecliptic plane

Also ETA(equator towards anticlockwise) Axis and ETC(equator toward clockwise) Axis

Its incosistent to describe the cosmos motion with only one or two axes.

Don't forget the all-important axis that connects Portlands Oregon and Maine! Except nobody claims the Earth rotates around the Portlandic Axis.

Seriously, though, I get that two non-parallel axis can define a plane, but the Earth rotates around the polar axis (that is, connecting the north and south poles), not any other axis. When depicting a rotating sphere(oid), you need only the axis of rotation. That axis, while it does wobble, a complete rotation of that wobble takes about 25,000 years (one day, Vega will be the pole-star, which'll be nice because Vega's a whole lot brighter than Polaris).



You say U and L are points which are defines as being points on the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn respectively. These tropics are perpendicular to the polar axis (that is, the axis connecting the north and south poles). They, and the equator, are points where these three parallel planes (the Tropic of Cancer plane, the Equatorial plane, and the Tropic of Capricorn plane) intersect the Earth. Once again, they're perpendicular to the polar axis.

Yes, there is an ecliptic plane, but since you're arguing in the heliocentric theory, it would best be described as centered on the Sun, upon which the Earth-Moon Barycenter^[1] always resides. The Earth orbits on this plane, but it does not revolve around any axis perpendicular to it. In fact, any axis perpendicular to this ecliptic plane (that is, an axis around the Earth) might be useful as a coordinate system, but is irrelevant in the rotation of the Earth.

Because the Earth rotates on the polar axis.

If you can show us a model of the Earth rotating on the polar axis and still show there should be four seasons every 24 hours, I will gladly and happily join with you in denouncing the heliocentric model. But that rotating Earth model has already been created<sup>[2]

[1] The Earth-Moon Barycenter is the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system. I say this orbits the sun because, just as the Earth pulls on the Moon, the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing it to wobble. This wobble is around the Earth-Moon Barycenter.

[2] See the model above</sup>

There are at least 7 major axes.

Polar Axis and Equatorial Axis - Horizon plane
Equatorial Axis and Aloft Axis - Equatorial plane
Polar Axis and Aloft Axis - Meridian plane
Ecliptic Axis and Equatorial Axis - Ecliptic plane
Anti-Ecliptic Axis and Equatorial Axis - Anti-ecliptic plane

Also ETA(equator towards anticlockwise) Axis and ETC(equator toward clockwise) Axis

Its incosistent to describe the cosmos motion with only one or two axes.

Please concentrate.

I said that there is one 'axis of rotation'.

Polar axis = axis of rotation
Equatorial axis = not an axis of rotation
Aloft axis = not an axis of rotation (I'm assuming that is an axis through the observers zenith and nadir points)
Ecliptic axis = not an axis of rotation
Anti-ecliptic axis/ETA/ETC = not an axes of rotation (I take it that those are more of Dr Shaban's confabulations)

It is not inconsistent to describe the rotation of the Earth with one axis, it only rotates on one axis. The Earth is not fixed and the cosmos does not rotate around it.

Don't forget the all-important axis that connects Portlands Oregon and Maine! Except nobody claims the Earth rotates around the Portlandic Axis.

Seriously, though, I get that two non-parallel axis can define a plane, but the Earth rotates around the polar axis (that is, connecting the north and south poles), not any other axis. When depicting a rotating sphere(oid), you need only the axis of rotation. That axis, while it does wobble, a complete rotation of that wobble takes about 25,000 years (one day, Vega will be the pole-star, which'll be nice because Vega's a whole lot brighter than Polaris).

You say U and L are points which are defines as being points on the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn respectively. These tropics are perpendicular to the polar axis (that is, the axis connecting the north and south poles). They, and the equator, are points where these three parallel planes (the Tropic of Cancer plane, the Equatorial plane, and the Tropic of Capricorn plane) intersect the Earth. Once again, they're perpendicular to the polar axis.

Yes, there is an ecliptic plane, but since you're arguing in the heliocentric theory, it would best be described as centered on the Sun, upon which the Earth-Moon Barycenter^[1] always resides. The Earth orbits on this plane, but it does not revolve around any axis perpendicular to it. In fact, any axis perpendicular to this ecliptic plane (that is, an axis around the Earth) might be useful as a coordinate system, but is irrelevant in the rotation of the Earth.

Because the Earth rotates on the polar axis.

If you can show us a model of the Earth rotating on the polar axis and still show there should be four seasons every 24 hours, I will gladly and happily join with you in denouncing the heliocentric model. But that rotating Earth model has already been created<sup>[2]

[1] The Earth-Moon Barycenter is the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system. I say this orbits the sun because, just as the Earth pulls on the Moon, the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing it to wobble. This wobble is around the Earth-Moon Barycenter.

[2] See the model above</sup>

Careful Alex, Myth is having trouble concentrating on the issue at hand. All this talk about barycentres and precession is sure to confuse!

Ta Ta

Do you really believe that a scientist that has examined heliocentrism from his deep roots, in a book through hundreds of mechanical figures, has made such a simple mistake as the one you imagine?

Yes, I proved you and him wrong using-

... a good "mechanical" representation.

otherwise known as a desktop globe.

It seems you have never heard of, nor do you own, one of these.  You should look it up.

Sorry, I confused the reply button with the edit one 

Ok so please explan why they aren't in figures D and B.

The "corrections" in B and D are false for the following reason:

Equatorial and ecliptic axes must be orthogonal in all 4 instances.  Equatorial and ecliptic planes are not perpendicular to each other, but their axes are orthogonal. U/L is orthogonal to E/W.

The figure of Mr Shaban is correct. In figure A the polar axis is perpendicular to the equatorial axis. In figure B the polar axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic axis. In figure C the polar axis is perpendicular to the equatorial axis again. In figure D its perpendicular to the ecliptic axis again.

Just do the math 360:4=90 degrees.  Since the Earth rotates, equatorial and ecliptic axes change orientation of 90 degrees every 6 hours.

Just do the math 360:4=90 degrees.  Since the Earth rotates, equatorial and ecliptic axes change orientation of 90 degrees every 6 hours.

Nope.  Desktop globe shows differently.

Quote from: Antonio on July 10, 2013, 07:59:44 AM

Sorry, I confused the reply button with the edit one 

Ok so please explan why they aren't in figures D and B.

The "corrections" in B and D are false for the following reason:

Equatorial and ecliptic axes must be orthogonal in all 4 instances.  Equatorial and ecliptic planes are not perpendicular to each other, but their axes are orthogonal. U/L is orthogonal to E/W.

The figure of Mr Shaban is correct. In figure A the polar axis is perpendicular to the equatorial axis. In figure B the polar axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic axis. In figure C the polar axis is perpendicular to the equatorial axis again. In figure D its perpendicular to the ecliptic axis again.

Just do the math 360:4=90 degrees.  Since the Earth rotates, equatorial and ecliptic axes change orientation of 90 degrees every 6 hours.

Holy McNuggets of Flaggon are you seriously trying to reboot this thread? The Earth rotates about the polar axis, tilted at around 23 degrees from the ecliptic plane (which is, by definition, centered around the sun). The equator is, by definition, perpendicular to the polar axis.

The only thing special about the ecliptic plane is that the Earth (well, Earth-Moon Barycenter) stays on it at all times. This mythical 'ecliptic axis' is just a random axis that's perpendicular to this plane.

To reiterate:

Earth rotates around the polar axis.
Equator is always perpendicular to the polar axis.

Buy a globe and an omni-directional lamp (one without a shade or a cone or anything, just a lightbulb with electricity). Place the globe and lamp on a table oriented such that the light hits the globe's tropic of cancer at a right angle (i.e. the summer solstice). Now spin the globe and keep track of where the light is hitting its surface.

The next image will solve your queries.   As the Earth rotates in Earth rotation scenario, the ecliptic and equatorial axis stay fixed to each other, but alternate their orientation.

But if you really want to have a clear view you have to buy the book and read the whole 4th chapter that is dedicated to the 4 seasons.

Have you actually tried shining a light at a globe, spinning it and seeing what happens?

The next image will solve your queries.   As the Earth rotates in Earth rotation scenario, the ecliptic and equatorial axis stay fixed to each other, but alternate their orientation

.

Thank you for the picture.
I assume you agree that the E-W axis is always perpendicular to the polar axis.
Can you please add on your drawing the position of the North pole?

The next image will solve your queries.   As the Earth rotates in Earth rotation scenario, the ecliptic and equatorial axis stay fixed to each other, but alternate their orientation.

But if you really want to have a clear view you have to buy the book and read the whole 4th chapter that is dedicated to the 4 seasons.

Why have you drawn the 'upper' and 'lower' points perpendicular to the polar axis?
Why don't you use a sphere in your models?
Why don't you buy a globe?

TrueMyth, new idea. Just watch this video:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This other one has a good version of the Earth spinning, clearly showing why your model is bunk:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I know these videos, they are false for the reasons I have already explained before. You tilt polar axis 23.5 degrees otherwise youre not presenting heliocentrism. Mr Shaban was superbly right when he told me that heliocentric is a cheating model, jumping from heliocentrism to geocentrism when it has no other way or faces problems.

What is so terribly difficult to understand in the image, since you believe the Earth rotates, making 360 degrees every 24 hours? Its clearly shown to you... 360 degrees divided in 4 parts of 90 degrees. What else do you need to understand? These two axes belong to the ecliptic plane and alternate orientation of 90 degrees every 6 hours....because...and what a because... the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane according to you. Only the tilted polar axis doesnt change orientation in your model.

The ecliptic axis(U,L) is configured by tilting the aloft axis(zenith,nadir) 23.5 degrees. You MUST familiarize yourself with planes and their axes. 4th chapter gives the fullest explanation ever upon planes and axes.

I have already said the book costs as much as a hamburger. Boring to repeat it.

I know these videos, they are false for the reasons I have already explained before. You tilt polar axis 23.5 degrees otherwise youre not presenting heliocentrism. Mr Shaban was superbly right when he told me that heliocentric is a cheating model, jumping from heliocentrism to geocentrism when it has no other way or faces problems.

What is so terribly difficult to understand in the image, since you believe the Earth rotates, making 360 degrees every 24 hours? Its clearly shown to you... 360 degrees divided in 4 parts of 90 degrees. What else do you need to understand? These two axes belong to the ecliptic plane and alternate orientation of 90 degrees every 6 hours....because...and what a because... the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane according to you. Only the tilted polar axis doesnt change orientation in your model.

The ecliptic axis(U,L) is configured by tilting the aloft axis(zenith,nadir) 23.5 degrees. You MUST familiarize yourself with planes and their axes. 4th chapter gives the fullest explanation ever upon planes and axes.

I have already said the book costs as much as a hamburger. Boring to repeat it.

A failure to understand the model you are trying to invalidate results in poor straw-men. The unwillingness to understand said model is indicative of your abilities to invalidate it.

It's obvious you're going to continue believing whatever you currently believe, so I'm out. Have fun tilting at windmills.