DAILY 4 SEASONS - END OF HELIOCENTRIC MODEL

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 Earth rotates upon the Polar axis. It does not rotate about the ecliptic. Any given latitude will not change the vertical angle of its facing towards the sun in a 24 hour period, if you could draw a 'line' on the point where one beam of light hit the earth or that day, it would all hit that same Latitude.

Myth,

Why do you persist in Dr Shaban's inaccurate and, arguably, intellectually deceitful representations of heliocentrism.

Your diagrams are wrong for the reasons explained by Alex, and demonstrated in my considerably more accurate representation of how the rotation of the earth is described by the heliocentric model.

It is easy to 'disprove' a model when it is represented in such a disingenuous way. Fortunately, Dr Shaban's basis for disproof is easily demonstrated false for anybody with access to a spherical object and a marker pen.

... a good "mechanical" representation.

...which just so happens to prove you and Mr. Shaban wrong.

Will there be anything else?

Quote from: True Myth on August 29, 2013, 09:39:08 AM

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 Earth rotates upon the Polar axis. It does not rotate about the ecliptic. Any given latitude will not change the vertical angle of its facing towards the sun in a 24 hour period, if you could draw a 'line' on the point where one beam of light hit the earth or that day, it would all hit that same Latitude.

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis. Correct.  But when the Earth rotates, isnt it upon the ecliptic plane which is the plane of revolution round the Sun? Dont heliocentrists say that the Earth rotates when it revolves round the Sun upon the ecliptic plane? So why its wrong to say that the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane? It both rotates and revolves in their model.

If  one beam of light continuously hits the Earth on the same latitude, then every latitude of Earth will have one season per day and year.

Which is the reason of tilting the polar axis 23.5 degrees? Its the heliocentric need  so that the tilting of the polar axis plus the rotation will allow seasons. I already explained that in their videos they dont show the Earth tilted when the sun rays hit the Earth. In other instances they even had the Sun moving. This is geocentrism, not heliocentrism!


People keep arguing that in my images the equatorial axis is not perpendicular to the polar axis. How do they arrive at such a conclusion? The equatorial axis IS always perpendicular to the polar axis.  It just changes orientation as the Earth rotates, so does the ecliptic axis. Only the polar axis doesnt change orientation. Thats why here we need to understand the change of two axes - equatorial and ecliptic - as the Earth rotates

Its simple. If the ecliptic plane is 360 degrees, then every 6 hours the ecliptic and equatorial axes move 90 degrees.  Why? Because in their model the Earth rotates.

See the previous image, it shows that the axes are orthogonal, 360:4=90 degrees.

Here it is again. Its very simple.

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.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 29, 2013, 10:27:47 AM

Quote from: True Myth on August 29, 2013, 09:39:08 AM

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 Earth rotates upon the Polar axis. It does not rotate about the ecliptic. Any given latitude will not change the vertical angle of its facing towards the sun in a 24 hour period, if you could draw a 'line' on the point where one beam of light hit the earth or that day, it would all hit that same Latitude.

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis. Correct.  But when the Earth rotates, isnt it upon the ecliptic plane which is the plane of revolution round the Sun? Dont heliocentrists say that the Earth rotates when it revolves round the Sun upon the ecliptic plane? So why its wrong to say that the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane? It both rotates and revolves in their model.

If  one beam of light continuously hits the Earth on the same latitude, then every latitude of Earth will have one season per day and year.

Which is the reason of tilting the polar axis 23.5 degrees? Its the heliocentric need  so that the tilting of the polar axis plus the rotation will allow seasons. I already explained that in their videos they dont show the Earth tilted when the sun rays hit the Earth. In other instances they even had the Sun moving. This is geocentrism, not heliocentrism!


People keep arguing that in my images the equatorial axis is not perpendicular to the polar axis. How do they arrive at such a conclusion? The equatorial axis IS always perpendicular to the polar axis.  It just changes orientation as the Earth rotates, so does the ecliptic axis. Only the polar axis doesnt change orientation. Thats why here we need to understand the change of two axes - equatorial and ecliptic - as the Earth rotates

Its simple. If the ecliptic plane is 360 degrees, then every 6 hours the ecliptic and equatorial axes move 90 degrees.  Why? Because in their model the Earth rotates.

See the previous image, it shows that the axes are orthogonal, 360:4=90 degrees.

Put simply you don't have a clue what you're on about.

You don't understand the Heliocentric model and appear to be unable to understand it. Your arguments are based on your imagining of what the Heliocentric model is as opposed to what it actually is.

Get yourself a globe, on the base of the globe draw an arrow. Now align the arrow with North and put a light source a meter or so away. If you can create this 4 seasons in 1 day affect without moving that arrow away from pointing North please video it, put it on Youtube and link to it here.

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis. Correct. 

Yes.

But when the Earth rotates, isnt it upon the ecliptic plane which is the plane of revolution round the Sun? Dont heliocentrists say that the Earth rotates when it revolves round the Sun upon the ecliptic plane? So why its wrong to say that the Earth rotates upon the ecliptic plane? It both rotates and revolves in their model.

The Earth rotates on it's polar axis as it revolves around the sun. Revolution is not the same as rotation. This is best illustrated by this image.



As the Earth orbits, or revolves, around the Sun the polar axis remains oriented in the same direction. This is what results in the seasons.

It is wrong to say that the Earth rotates on the ecliptic plane, quite simply, because it does not. The axis of rotation of the Earth is only along the polar axis.

If  one beam of light continuously hits the Earth on the same latitude, then every latitude of Earth will have one season per day and year.

Which is the reason of tilting the polar axis 23.5 degrees? Its the heliocentric need  so that the tilting of the polar axis plus the rotation will allow seasons. I already explained that in their videos they dont show the Earth tilted when the sun rays hit the Earth. In other instances they even had the Sun moving. This is geocentrism, not heliocentrism!

At no point in this video (" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">) does that happen. The teacher moves the globe around maintaining the axial tilt at each stage of it's orbit around the 'Sun'. You clearly haven't watched it.

Incidentally, the teacher is doing what we've been suggesting you do for the last three months.

People keep arguing that in my images the equatorial axis is not perpendicular to the polar axis. How do they arrive at such a conclusion? The equatorial axis IS always perpendicular to the polar axis.  It just changes orientation as the Earth rotates, so does the ecliptic axis. Only the polar axis doesnt change orientation. Thats why here we need to understand the change of two axes - equatorial and ecliptic - as the Earth rotates

Its simple. If the ecliptic plane is 360 degrees, then every 6 hours the ecliptic and equatorial axes move 90 degrees.  Why? Because in their model the Earth rotates.

See the previous image, it shows that the axes are orthogonal, 360:4=90 degrees.

No, we have been telling you that the points  Upper, Lower, E and W in your diagrams are not all on the Equatorial plane. This is how the points in Dr Shaban's, god-awful book, are orientated on an actual 3 dimensional object.



The Equatorial plane is defined by E, W, N and S always. Upper and Lower are positioned on the planes of the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. The points E, W, Upper and Lower only exist on the Plane of the Ecliptic once every rotation.

Please also learn how to use the terminology correctly, as you will never understand this subject correctly until you do.

Hello. May I make some corrections?

The equatorial plane's points are E,W,N(nadir) and Z(zenith),  not E,W,S,N.

South and North belong to the Horizon Plane, not the Equatorial Plane.

Next, yes E,W,U,L exist in the ecliptic plane.  But E,W exist also in the equatorial plane as we said.

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis,Ok. What I meant is that while the Earth rotates, it also revolves in a circular path round the Sun called ecliptic plane.

No, his book is not awful at all. Of course you dont have to agree with everything he writes.  You may judge it as awful(its your freedom) but you dont have a fair view yet to arrive at such conclusions. You havent read anything beyond an illustration.

Also, Id like to learn the reason for banning me.

No one was banned. There was a brief site outage.

Hello. May I make some corrections?

The equatorial plane's points are E,W,N(nadir) and Z(zenith),  not E,W,S,N.

South and North belong to the Horizon Plane, not the Equatorial Plane.

Yes, S instead of Z are quite clearly typo's on my part.

Next, yes E,W,U,L exist in the ecliptic plane.  But E,W exist also in the equatorial plane as we said.

This matters not a fig. The Plane of the Ecliptic is not perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the Equatorial Plane is.

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis,Ok. What I meant is that while the Earth rotates, it also revolves in a circular path round the Sun called ecliptic plane.

Yes it revolves around the Sun. However, just to reaffirm, this does not mean it rotates perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptic.

In fact there seems to be some confusion, in both Dr Shaban's text and your posts,  as to what the Plane of the Ecliptic is. It refers to the observed path of the Sun across the Sky from Earth and is therefore centred on the Earth. It is slightly offset to the Invariable Plane of solar system which is centred on the Sun.

No, his book is not awful at all. Of course you dont have to agree with everything he writes.  You may judge it as awful(its your freedom) but you dont have a fair view yet to arrive at such conclusions. You havent read anything beyond an illustration.

Actually, I have read the chapters that he has allowed you to make available.

I find them:

• Full of basic errors.
• Written poorly. The language is heavily biased and clearly written from the position of someone who is trying to find any way to disprove the theory and needing to resort to non-neutral language to do so.
• Is written by someone who quite clearly doesn't understand the heliocentric model. He is disproving his own, distorted version of it.
• Demonstrates poor logic.

That is a fair indication of what quality can be expected from the rest of his oeuvre.

Also, Id like to learn the reason for banning me.

I take it that you also saw the 'Account suspended' messages. I believe this referred to the FES server account and not our accounts.

Quote from: True Myth on August 31, 2013, 03:00:21 AM

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis,Ok. What I meant is that while the Earth rotates, it also revolves in a circular path round the Sun called ecliptic plane.

Yes it revolves around the Sun. However, just to reaffirm, this does not mean it rotates perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptic.

In fact there seems to be some confusion, in both Dr Shaban's text and your posts,  as to what the Plane of the Ecliptic is. It refers to the observed path of the Sun across the Sky from Earth and is therefore centred on the Earth. It is slightly offset to the Invariable Plane of solar system which is centred on the Sun.

This seems to be precisely what is confusing True Myth. He keeps saying that he understands that the Earth rotates about its polar axis but then shows images like this:



which clearly show that he doesn't understand that it rotates about the polar axis. This image is rotating about the ecliptic plane (which is simply the path the earth takes around the sun in one year).

He has taken an image and applied an animation to it which turns(rotates) the image. The turning represents rotation but he has forgotten to apply the tilt.

Quote from: dephelis on August 31, 2013, 04:51:29 AM

Quote from: True Myth on August 31, 2013, 03:00:21 AM

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis,Ok. What I meant is that while the Earth rotates, it also revolves in a circular path round the Sun called ecliptic plane.

Yes it revolves around the Sun. However, just to reaffirm, this does not mean it rotates perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptic.

In fact there seems to be some confusion, in both Dr Shaban's text and your posts,  as to what the Plane of the Ecliptic is. It refers to the observed path of the Sun across the Sky from Earth and is therefore centred on the Earth. It is slightly offset to the Invariable Plane of solar system which is centred on the Sun.

This seems to be precisely what is confusing True Myth. He keeps saying that he understands that the Earth rotates about its polar axis but then shows images like this:



which clearly show that he doesn't understand that it rotates about the polar axis. This image is rotating about the ecliptic plane (which is simply the path the earth takes around the sun in one year).

He has taken an image and applied an animation to it which turns(rotates) the image. The turning represents rotation but he has forgotten to apply the tilt.

Have you not read what I have already said?

I just made this amimation online to show that as the Earth rotates the ecliptic axis change orientation towards the Sun. Its not my fault that the animation couldnt keep polar axis fixed. It rotates the whole image. The reason of this poor image is to show what happens with U/L axis if the Earth rotates.

The ecliptic plane is the path of the Earth round the Sun, I dont know why the other heliocentrists say its the observed path of the Sun, since they are not geocentrists.


I see that heliocentrists have some confusion with planes and axes. Here is the explanation of 4 planes and their axes

horizon plane = polar axis(S,N) + equatorial axis(W,E)
meridian plane = polar axis(S,N) + ecliptic axis(U,L)
equatorial plane = equatorial axis(W,E) + aloft axis(Z,N)
ecliptic plane = ecliptic axis(U,L) + equatorial axis(W,E)


Also the heliocentrists have not pointed out whats wrong in the 2nd chapter of Mr Shaban. Anyway, I dont like the defaming of a book, its not right.

If one wants to really see whats the book about, he doesnt have to listen to critics, he just has to buy the book and see the truth on his own.

I personally believe that Mr Shaban has presented the greatest geocentric model of all time and has destroyed heliocentrism, but these are just words. The other says the opposite thing.

You have to buy the book and study, not listen to me or him.

The ecliptic plane is the path of the Earth round the Sun, I dont know why the other heliocentrists say its the observed path of the Sun, since they are not geocentrists.

meh, those are really the same thing. As was pointed out to you before in the heliocentric model the ecliptic plane is irrelevant to Earths rotation. It is only related to the revolution or orbit around the sun. You seem so confused, I feel sorry for ya.

Quote from: rottingroom on August 31, 2013, 06:40:42 AM

Quote from: dephelis on August 31, 2013, 04:51:29 AM

Quote from: True Myth on August 31, 2013, 03:00:21 AM

The Earth rotates upon the polar axis,Ok. What I meant is that while the Earth rotates, it also revolves in a circular path round the Sun called ecliptic plane.

Yes it revolves around the Sun. However, just to reaffirm, this does not mean it rotates perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptic.

In fact there seems to be some confusion, in both Dr Shaban's text and your posts,  as to what the Plane of the Ecliptic is. It refers to the observed path of the Sun across the Sky from Earth and is therefore centred on the Earth. It is slightly offset to the Invariable Plane of solar system which is centred on the Sun.

This seems to be precisely what is confusing True Myth. He keeps saying that he understands that the Earth rotates about its polar axis but then shows images like this:



which clearly show that he doesn't understand that it rotates about the polar axis. This image is rotating about the ecliptic plane (which is simply the path the earth takes around the sun in one year).

He has taken an image and applied an animation to it which turns(rotates) the image. The turning represents rotation but he has forgotten to apply the tilt.

Have you not read what I have already said?

I just made this amimation online to show that as the Earth rotates the ecliptic axis change orientation towards the Sun. Its not my fault that the animation couldnt keep polar axis fixed. It rotates the whole image. The reason of this poor image is to show what happens with U/L axis if the Earth rotates.

Except this is exactly what you meant as it is demonstrating Figure 4.13 of Dr Shaban's book, which you posted earlier in this thread. The argument that the Earth experiences four seasons in 24 hours can only occur with the rotation of the Earth around an axis perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This does not occur.

The ecliptic plane is the path of the Earth round the Sun, I dont know why the other heliocentrists say its the observed path of the Sun, since they are not geocentrists.

No, the plane of the ecliptic is the projection of the Suns path on the celestial sphere as viewed from Earth. The following Wikipedia entry should help explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic. It is an ancient concept that predates the heliocentric model and was used to predict eclipses, which is where it gets its name.

I see that heliocentrists have some confusion with planes and axes. Here is the explanation of 4 planes and their axes

horizon plane = polar axis(S,N) + equatorial axis(W,E)
meridian plane = polar axis(S,N) + ecliptic axis(U,L)
equatorial plane = equatorial axis(W,E) + aloft axis(Z,N)
ecliptic plane = ecliptic axis(U,L) + equatorial axis(W,E)

All very handy but, as we have explained to you, the only axis and plane to have any bearing on the the orbit and rotation of the earth are the polar axis (axis of Earth rotation), equatorial plane and the plane of the ecliptic.

Additionally some of these names are already established and your use of them is contrary to established usage.

Zenith: An arbitrary point directly above an observers location. This is not a fixed point and is different for each observer.
Nadir: The same as Zenith except it refers to a point directly below the observer.
Meridian: An arbitrary circle that starts at the north celestial pole, passes through the zenith, then the south celestial pole, the nadir and then back to the north celestial pole. The ecliptic does not figure.

They are relative to the observer, not the Earth, Sun or any other celestial body.

Also the heliocentrists have not pointed out whats wrong in the 2nd chapter of Mr Shaban. Anyway, I dont like the defaming of a book, its not right.

That has recently been dealt with by Alex in the appropriate thread. You created this one to discuss "Daily 4 Seasons".

Also you can not defame a book, you defame a person. You critique a book, which is a right thing to do. Especially when it is as flawed as this one is. If Dr Shaban does not want people to be critical of his work he should make efforts to fix the faults his book suffers from (see my earlier list of issues).

If one wants to really see whats the book about, he doesnt have to listen to critics, he just has to buy the book and see the truth on his own.

I personally believe that Mr Shaban has presented the greatest geocentric model of all time and has destroyed heliocentrism, but these are just words. The other says the opposite thing.

You have to buy the book and study, not listen to me or him.

He really hasn't.

Ok, just because there has been a lot of confusion and distortion,  I will post the whole page of his book even if I admit it wasnt right to do so.  Remember Im not the best to present Mr Shaban's book, but because there hasnt been any other I have to do the best I can. Just to mention that it wasnt Dr Shaban's original aim to make known his book to various sites, it was my enthusiasm and he agreed.

As you can see both 3 axes polar, equatorial, ecliptic are perpendicular and orthogonal. Turn the page upside down if you still dont get it.

There isnt any error with axes. Equatorial and ecliptic axes change orientation, only the tilted polar axis stays fixed.

Ok, just because there has been a lot of confusion and distortion,  I will post the whole page of his book even if I admit it wasnt right to do so.  Remember Im not the best to present Mr Shaban's book, but because there hasnt been any other I have to do the best I can. Just to mention that it wasnt Dr Shaban's original aim to make known his book to various sites, it was my enthusiasm and he agreed.

As you can see both 3 axes polar, equatorial, ecliptic are perpendicular and orthogonal. Turn the page upside down if you still dont get it.

There isnt any error with axes. Equatorial and ecliptic axes change orientation, only the tilted polar axis stays fixed.

Man.... The ecliptic is irrelevant to the way the earth rotates. Heliocentricity does not posit that the ecliptic plane is moving around. Was this guy seriously published?

In the subtext of the diagram he says that the ecliptic must be in rotation, the thing is that it isn't. Why did he even bother putting the tilt there. His images seem to indicate that he knows there is a tilt but the progression of images are showing an incorrect version of what happens to the tropics. The upper and lower would only switch places like that if the model was tilted but rotating alongsome entirely different plane that goes from one tropic to the other which would then cause the earth to do this crazy wobble everyday.

Imagine you have a ball. Poke 2 sticks in opposite ends of the ball for the north and south pole. Tilt it. Now rotate the sticks. Do not move your hands around. Just turn the sticks while keeping that tilt. Does that help?

The page seems out of context, but I'll do my best to run with it.  The orientation of the Earth does not change as in

and so four seasons wouldn't be experienced.

The points do not exchange, because the latitude exposed by the Earth's rotation remains constant.  Since you seemed so fond of my MS Paint drawings, here is what the heliocentric model proposes. 



Z is fixed to the intersection of the ecliptic and the Tropic of Cancer.
N is fixed to the intersection of the ecliptic and the Tropic of Capricorn.
E and W are fixed to the perpendicular points where the Equator and ecliptic intersect.
X and Y are fixed points on the surface, defined as normally would be Nadir and Zenith.

At no point do Z, N, E, or W exchange places with any other point.  X and Y are mobile, due to the rotation of the Earth about the polar axis, not imaged due to it obscuring the labeled points.  But at no point do the Tropics and Equator change orientation, because the first image in this post is not what happens under any model.

If you can present anything where such happens, but wherein the object still revolves solely around the geographic poles, you may be taken seriously.  In the meantime, buy a cheap globe with tilted axes and a marking pen or lamp to demonstrate the above at your leisure.

Tsk tsk.... you are too impatient and negative.  Lets take it slowly and explain what we say. Don be in hurry!

First of all please dont repeat my drawing with the 3d rotation. Its good for those who understand but its a failure of what I really wanted to present, cause it rotates the polar axis like the axis precession theory. I mean it still can show something, but not the whole thing.  Its an error. This is not Mr Shaban's image, its mine image. Ok?


Secondly, you said
"Z is fixed to the intersection of the ecliptic and the Tropic of Cancer.
N is fixed to the intersection of the ecliptic and the Tropic of Capricorn.
E and W are fixed to the perpendicular points where the Equator and ecliptic intersect.
X and Y are fixed points on the surface, defined as normally would be Nadir and Zenith".


Im too confused with your letters. You use Z and N for something else instead of Zenith and Nadir. You use X and Y for Zenith and Nadir.

Excuse me but there is too much confusion here. Please follow me carefully.

The middle tilted circle where you have put X,Y,W,E is the equator. You must use Z and N instead of X and Y.  Now for the intersection of the ecliptic with the tropics you must use U(upper) and L(lower) not Z and N.


Sir, then you must understand that all points instead of N(north) and S(south) exchange positions because the Earth rotates, not only Zenith and Nadir.  For example after 180 degrees of rotation W will be where E was before 12 hours, and E will be where W was before 12 hours.  Otherwise people on West(afternoon) will not be on East(dawn) after 12 hours, and people on East(dawn) will not be on West(afternoon) after 12 hours! Everything in a rotating Earth(instead of N and S) is mobile. Otherwise your points are outside of Earth. If they are on Earth, they rotate as your theory says.


About the other guy.  Please dont say big words like "Was this man seriously published? This man is awarded by Nasa that all heliocentrists respect. You may not agree with him, but first of all try to understand before you jump to quick conclusions. I repeat people, take it slowly.

Mr Shaban never wrote that ecliptic plane rotates. Lol! He says the ecliptic axis, NOT the ecliptic plane.

Finally, please  dont repeat again your wrong conclusion for me, when I say the Earth rotates on the ecliptic plane. When the Earth revolves around the Sun it also rotates upon the polar axis. I never said the ecliptic axis is the axis of rotation. Please be careful to understand.

Tsk tsk.... you are too impatient and negative.  Lets take it slowly and explain what we say. Don be in hurry!

First of all please dont repeat my drawing with the 3d rotation. Its good for those who understand but its a failure of what I really wanted to present, cause it rotates the polar axis like the axis precession theory. I mean it still can show something, but not the whole thing.  Its an error. This is not Mr Shaban's image, its mine image. Ok?

Actually Mr. Shaban's image pretty much does exactly what you were showing in the animation and from your animation you can clearly see that it is incorrect. You are confused because Shaban is unintentionally misleading and misinforming you. To make things simple I will show you first how he is incorrect and why it is that in order for upper and lower to be at the positions he suggests, then the rotation must be like the animation you made which we have all agreed (including you) to be incorrect.

Figure A.





In Figure A he shows a polar axis in all of his images and has the line that represents the axis correctly fixed at a tilt [check].

He then shows in these two images (which are 12 hours apart) that U and L will switch places but it is not possible for U and L to switch places by rotation via the polar axis. This would only be possible by rotating around a fake axis that I will call the ecliptic axis which I've shown you in figure B, I've colored the ecliptic axis green for you.

Figure B.



In figure C I show you why it is only possible to switch U and L by moving the polar axis.

Figure C.



See how Shaban is incorrect? You cannot, I repeat cannot have U and L switch places if the polar axis is fixed!

Finally, lets observe 2 parts of your animation that are 12 hours apart and show you how you are making the same error as Shaban.

Figure D.



You can see that in figure D and Figure A everything is labeled identically except for the Polar Axis. In both examples U and L switch places which is what you and Shaban expect.

They are both incorrect because this is only possible by rotating via the ecliptic axis highlighted in green on Figure B. Shaban seems to be geometrically inept because in his head he is incorrectly making this happen without moving the Polar Axis as shown in figure A.

I have shown you that U and L cannot switch places unless the Polar Axis moves in Figure C.

Tsk tsk.... you are too impatient and negative.  Lets take it slowly and explain what we say. Don be in hurry!

First of all please dont repeat my drawing with the 3d rotation. Its good for those who understand but its a failure of what I really wanted to present, cause it rotates the polar axis like the axis precession theory. I mean it still can show something, but not the whole thing.  Its an error. This is not Mr Shaban's image, its mine image. Ok?

Give a better representation, and we'll stop using it.  Until then, it seems to be the only way that what you and Mr. Shaban claim could be happening.

Secondly, you said
"Z is fixed to the intersection of the ecliptic and the Tropic of Cancer.
N is fixed to the intersection of the ecliptic and the Tropic of Capricorn.
E and W are fixed to the perpendicular points where the Equator and ecliptic intersect.
X and Y are fixed points on the surface, defined as normally would be Nadir and Zenith".


Im too confused with your letters. You use Z and N for something else instead of Zenith and Nadir. You use X and Y for Zenith and Nadir.

Excuse me but there is too much confusion here. Please follow me carefully.

The middle tilted circle where you have put X,Y,W,E is the equator. You must use Z and N instead of X and Y.  Now for the intersection of the ecliptic with the tropics you must use U(upper) and L(lower) not Z and N.

Sorry, I must have overestimated somewhere along the way, I thought you could understand the points as defined.  Obviously I was wrong, here.



The rotation is shown in Z and N this time as a single observer on the face of the planet.  U and L taking place as the intersections of the ecliptic and tropics.

Oh, and in case you've forgotten:
W and E are the intersection of the Equator and ecliptic.

Sir, then you must understand that all points instead of N(north) and S(south) exchange positions because the Earth rotates, not only Zenith and Nadir.  For example after 180 degrees of rotation W will be where E was before 12 hours, and E will be where W was before 12 hours.  Otherwise people on West(afternoon) will not be on East(dawn) after 12 hours, and people on East(dawn) will not be on West(afternoon) after 12 hours! Everything in a rotating Earth(instead of N and S) is mobile. Otherwise your points are outside of Earth. If they are on Earth, they rotate as your theory says.

Everything rotates, but only Z and N are relative to a single physical location.  Everything else is relative to a latitude and the sun.  If the Tropic of Cancer is exposed in the beginning of the day, it will be exposed in six hours.  And six hours after that.  And another six hours and even another.  Only about a half of the Tropic of Cancer will be exposed at a given time, and the location on the Tropic of Cancer will have changed over the course of the day.  But since the tropics and latitudes in general are based on the geographic poles and not the celestial poles, the latitude exposed remains more or less constant.

For the nth time this thread, buy a globe and a lamp or marking pen.  They're not that expensive, and they clearly show in three dimensions what you aren't seeming to get in two dimensions.

You said
"You are confused because Shaban is unintentionally misleading and misinforming you"

Reply
Please dont say such things. Mr Shaban continues to answer in every question I have about his book, IN DETAIL. Hes not bored or upset with questions. If his aim was to mislead and misinform he would have problem to repeatedly deal with the same questions until his reader understand. Of course he answers to people who show interest to geocentrism, not people who just care to disprove geocentric views.

You said:
"He then shows in these two images (which are 12 hours apart) that U and L will switch places but it is not possible for U and L to switch places by rotation via the polar axis. This would only be possible by rotating around a fake axis that I will call the ecliptic axis which I've shown you in figure B, I've colored the ecliptic axis green for you."

My reply
Sir forget my image cause it confuses us. Thanks for this cause now I begin to understand your thought.

You say its impossible for U and L to switch places by rotation via the polar axis. Well, isnt everything on Earth switch place as the Earth rotates? For example if the Earth rotates, wont New York be on the opposite side after 12 hours? For example If it was North of East at the Dawn, it will be North of West in the Evening.

In heliocentrism, the points of the terrestrial equatorial axis change orientation because they are mobile as the Earth rotates.  If we keep them fixed, then were talking about geocentrism.

Generally, in heliocentrism the terrestrial axes are mobile(except polar axis for the rotational need),  in geocentrism the celestial axes are mobile.

Ecliptic axis is not the green vertical line. In fact  its the white line, which is perpendicular to the green line you have made. Why do you call it fake? All axes are imaginary.

You said
"You are confused because Shaban is unintentionally misleading and misinforming you"

Reply
Please dont say such things. Mr Shaban continues to answer in every question I have about his book, IN DETAIL. Hes not bored or upset with questions. If his aim was to mislead and misinform he would have problem to repeatedly deal with the same questions until his reader understand. Of course he answers to people who show interest to geocentrism, not people who just care to disprove geocentric views.

I only say those things because they are true.

You said:
"He then shows in these two images (which are 12 hours apart) that U and L will switch places but it is not possible for U and L to switch places by rotation via the polar axis. This would only be possible by rotating around a fake axis that I will call the ecliptic axis which I've shown you in figure B, I've colored the ecliptic axis green for you."

My reply
Sir forget my image cause it confuses us. Thanks for this cause now I begin to understand your thought.

Your image is relevant because it is just like Shaban's! I only reposted it to show how this is so.

You say its impossible for U and L to switch places by rotation via the polar axis. Well, isnt everything on Earth switch place as the Earth rotates? For example if the Earth rotates, wont New York be on the opposite side after 12 hours? For example If it was North of East at the Dawn, it will be North of West in the Evening.

U, L and New York do not end up on the exact opposite of the Earth when the Earth spins on its Polar Axis. This can only be achieved if they are spinning about what I showed you to be the ecliptic axis. But they spin around the Polar Axis so they end up on the opposite side of the Earth but not on the exact opposite side. I don't know how you can't see this from the clear examples that myself and everyone else has provided you.

In heliocentrism, the points of the terrestrial equatorial axis change orientation because they are mobile as the Earth rotates.  If we keep them fixed, then were talking about geocentrism.

Geocentrism is simply the idea that things in the solar system revolve around the Earth. Heliocentrism is the idea that they revolve around the Sun. Terrestrial equatorial axis? There is no such term, as far as I can tell that's a synonym for Polar axis.

Generally, in heliocentrism the terrestrial axes are mobile(except polar axis for the rotational need),  in geocentrism the celestial
axes are mobile.

The celestial axis is also a synonym for the Polar axis.

Ecliptic axis is not the green vertical line. In fact  its the white line, which is perpendicular to the green line you have made. Why do you call it fake? All axes are imaginary.

I said it was fake because it is a term that I made up to get a point across. I defined the green line as the ecliptic axis because that is the line your model and Shabans rotate around, so I thought it would be fitting to give it a name. I also found it fitting to call it the ecliptic axis because it is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane.

Seriously, get a globe, this little beauty is pretty inexpensive:



Actually, with that image there, I might try to clarify something. Picture the sun being off to the right, so that it is currently near midday in Australia. It's the Southern hemisphere's summer, and even 12 hours later, when Australia is around where southern Africa is in the image (the globe having rotated about it's polar axis), it's still going to be summer, even though it's now night, because the sun has been at a high angle relative to the ground and has heated the landmass more over the course of the day than it does during winter, when the sun is at a lower relative angle to the ground throughout the day.

Not sure if you'll understand all that, but hopefully it's a starting point!

Lets focus on this.

You say that the East and West points of the Earthly equatorial axis do not exchange position after 180 degrees of Earth rotation.

So which is the job of an axis? Isnt it to move and point? If polar axis rotates(round itself without changing orientation) wont the other axes and the whole Earth rotate because of the polar axis? They are all attached to the polar axis.

This is why I say Mr Shaban's shows the mechanical problems. The Heliocentrism that is taught is a few lines on paper without any complexity.

Its irrelevant to use the argument that axes are imaginary. Axes point somewhere!  As a consequence of polar axis whirling round itself, all other terrestrial axes move. In Heliocentrism its the Earth moving and not the Sun moving.

Lets focus on this.

You say that the East and West points of the Earthly equatorial axis do not exchange position after 180 degrees of Earth rotation.

So which is the job of an axis? Isnt it to move and point? If polar axis rotates(round itself without changing orientation) wont the other axes and the whole Earth rotate because of the polar axis? They are all attached to the polar axis.

This is why I say Mr Shaban's shows the mechanical problems. The Heliocentrism that is taught is a few lines on paper without any complexity.

Its irrelevant to use the argument that axes are imaginary. Axes point somewhere!  As a consequence of polar axis whirling round itself, all other terrestrial axes move. In Heliocentrism its the Earth moving and not the Sun moving.

I did not say that the those points don't go to the other side of the earth, I said that they don't go to the exact opposite side of the earth. At this point I really don't thin you are going to grasp this stuff.

Lets focus on this.

You say that the East and West points of the Earthly equatorial axis do not exchange position after 180 degrees of Earth rotation.

So which is the job of an axis? Isnt it to move and point? If polar axis rotates(round itself without changing orientation) wont the other axes and the whole Earth rotate because of the polar axis? They are all attached to the polar axis.

This is why I say Mr Shaban's shows the mechanical problems. The Heliocentrism that is taught is a few lines on paper without any complexity.

Its irrelevant to use the argument that axes are imaginary. Axes point somewhere!  As a consequence of polar axis whirling round itself, all other terrestrial axes move. In Heliocentrism its the Earth moving and not the Sun moving.

Right, the physical locations of the hypothetical axes move over time.  If the axes are fixed to physical locations, and not points relative to parallels and the sun, they move.  Barring Z and N, they aren't, they don't.  They have been defined, without objection, as the intersection of a latitude and the path of the sun in the sky.  It's also correct to say that the physical points would almost never be upon their diametric opposite point.  Exceptions with locations very near to the equator.


Now, I'm done until you buy that globe you so evidently need, or until you make an actual decent point.

Correction.

With "opposite side" I mean 180 degrees difference from the location 12 hours before.

Dear heliocentrists I feel youre rejecting something from the beginning as ridiculous. This is a serious error. You must take it slowly before rejecting any theory.

I asked Mr Shaban about your demo.

Me:
They told me to take an Earthy ball (toy) and light a lens while
rotating the Earth with my hand. They say I will notice the Sun does not move
daily from Tropic of Cancer to Tropic of Capricorn, as your theory suggests.

Mr Shaban:
This is absolutely true; I mean the demo but in this this case we (north and south) will
have one season during 365 days. This is the reasons why I made three different scenarios before the final fate. The three scenarios are shown in Figure 4.9,
4.10, 4.11.

The Earth according to their theory must move in the ecliptic circle around the sun
while it undergoes a daily rotation, this ecliptic circle must coincide with
the ecliptic circle of the Earth from here you get four seasons.

Wow, that is a long (and I've only just noticed - old) thread! Myth, are you here to promote your Mr Shaban's book, primarily, or is this something you believe and want to share? Because if that's the case, I'd like to figure out just where the problem is.

I'd be happy to throw a visualisation together if we can't get to the bottom of it, but have a look at this and tell me where it's wrong or incomplete, or intentionally deceptive in some way:

Seasons and sunlight direction model

Just click and drag the view around, slide the date through a year and stuff. Pretty nifty thing.

Sales must be flagging.

Myth, yet again you/Dr. Shaban demonstrates that he hasn't the foggiest idea of how the heliocentric model works.