[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing

Dear Paul,
I haven't read your critique because (A) My drawing IS meant to show the 
heliocentric model and the alleged two simultaneous rotations as described by 
Neville's drawing. (B) In your criticism of my terminology I am assuming you 
are unable to see what I'm obviously explaining even if it is wrong.  Everyone 
else seems to understand what I was getting at. Please spare me the semantics.

All who are checking my drawing: Please address your technical questions to 
Neville whose drawing I attempted to show more graphically. The only change I 
would make at this point is that I have indicated rotation of the ecliptic 
plane. This is wrong although I doubt it would change anything the gist of my 
illustration.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:35 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing


  Jack L
  I've been thinking about your drawing too and am as puzzled as Marc V. This 
drawing seems to be some sort of hybrid of both HC and GC systems. And your 
later post says that the drawing is what you claim heliocentrists claim which I 
for one disclaim. 
  I see a number of terminology problems here -- let me address these first. 
[1] The Earth does not rotate on two axes -- it rotates on one axis and 
revolves around the Sun (surprisingly not shown). [2] The word 'traverse' means 
to cross, to follow a zig-zag course (several places). 
  Now problems of description. [3] It is not clear to me what is '..the 
world...'. If the green circles are a spot on the world how then does its 
surface encompass the plane of the ecliptic? [4] Earth rotates once in ~ 23h 
56m not one (24h) day. [5] The Earth's orbit lies on the plane of the ecliptic, 
the 'axis' of which is the NEP not the NCP (nice to have the company -- 
welcome!) This is the axis about which the Earth revolves -- a circular 
translation. There is only one ecliptic plane -- not four, not 365.25 -- one! 
[6] That one pole circles another is just a figure of speech in relative terms 
used for illustrative purposes only. The stars are stationary. [7] As above -- 
there is only one rotation. You cannot compare radial velocity with 
translational velocity. 'Happening on very different time scales' would be 
closer.
  I really don't know why you guys are so hung up over these issues -- the 
whole thing is dead simple. There are two motions -
  1.   The Earth revolves around the Sun describing an ellipse on the ecliptic 
plane. The Sun -- the centre of mass of Sun/Earth -- is at one focus of the 
ellipse. This focus is also on the ecliptic plane. A line orthogonal to this 
plane passing through the Sun is known as the Ecliptic Pole. It points in a 
constant direction.
  2.   The Earth rotates on its axis (you can't have one without the other -- 
is this a redundancy I wonder?) once in ~ 23h 56m. The axis of this rotation is 
inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. To a first approximation, there is no 
precession. This axis is thus pointing always in one direction. It is called 
the Celestial Pole and is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic at an angle of 
~ 66.5 deg or 23.5 deg from the ecliptic pole.
  3.   These motions do not interact. The Earth's axis of rotation could be 
inclined at any angle to the ecliptic plane and it would have no effect on its 
revolution. (See Uranus for example).
  Paul D

Other related posts: