# [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:44:52 -0800 (PST)
```One last thing, for the evening.....They say a picture speaks a thousand
words......  Hopefully you will all be able to see this....brand new attached
diagram. it illustrates the fundamental error in your argument...........

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     Ja,

Your drawing I agree with but your drawing does not show everything nor does
it to be correct. It only shows the nightly motion over a night or over a year,
so there is no disagreement there. The annual motion will replicate a nightly
motion too ...That too is not nor was it ever in question. The reason it
replicates the nightly over the course of a year is that the observer
parallaxes the celestial axis...The observer parallaxes the ecliptic as well
you cant just say that since it does one then the other is unseen....That is
what you do not show. It is the orbital motion that produced that nightly view
due to parallax. Your are in essence showing the spin ( nightly motion) on a
orbital sander and saying see spin therefore no orbit?....... There is a
nightly motion in that annual PLUS a orbital rotational motion. not a nightly
therefore nothing else..that is not possible nor does it make mechanical or
experimental sense.

The only thing Jack's diagram shows is the vertical distance along the
ecliptic axis changes over the course of a year that is what Nevile's/Jack's
drawing is showing you. The only other thing is the camera angel to that
axis..That is irrelevant. It does not matter because you don?t have to look at
the axis to see the rotational effect...What you are arguing is in effect a
nightly motion replicated annually with no other motion...That is wrong and
based on the two fallacies I listed, because without assuming these fallacies
the argument does not hold together.

1. Since you are not looking at the annual axis of rotation the it is
obscured by the annual reproduction of the nightly trails thus you cannot see
the other axis.
2. Since the nightly would show up in the annual therefore the two are
equivalent...that is like saying the spin and orbit of a orbital sander are one
in the same since they take place in the same or a different plane!?

The fact that the nightly motion is and can be reproduced in that annual has
nothing to do with the problem except that for you since you see the nightly in
the annual you somehow thus conclude that is all there is to see......Again it
makes no mechanical or experimental  sense to assume that

Your conclusions are based on those false assumptions. These are the basic
and relevant facts that prove and will prove to anybody else that bothers to do
some real experimentation and not just thought experiments that only show you
what HC has programmed you to think..?
1. rotational condition exits every 24 hours period
2. you do not have to look at or be at the same angle of a rotation in order
to view it period
3. star trails any annual or nightly trails that are reproduced via the
annual motion are determined solely by the distance to the star from the axis
of rotation in question.
4. Two different axis have two different arc distances to each star

Regardless of your view of the & or all axis of rotation they cannot hide in
one another .

Gota get offline for today.......I?m turning blue in the face I think?..:-)

j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,

It would seem there is allot I don't understand. I don't understand how you
can agree with my drawing "earth"  where the cameras in position 2 are the same
whether it's 12 hours later or 6 months later and still hold your view. And if
you don't agree with the drawing, I don't understand why?

Did you agree or disagree with my statement from the previous email
(highlighted) ? I'm trying to make sure our understanding of the reasons and
mechanics are identical for the nightly before extending the reasoning to the
annual.

JA

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ja,

I agree with your drawings... Again no one is debating the fact that the
annual motion will record the nightly motion....that is a FACT!...however it is
also a fact that a secondary motion would and must be present that is not a
assumption that is a physical fact, just as in the case of a orbital
sander........Your conclusion which states just the opposite is an assumption
by definition.....What do you not understand?

more in blue....

j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In red below

Allen, you are assuming what I'm assuming and not even looking at my diagrams
or logic because you are so convinced of your own. Allow me some lee-way here
and just respond as simply as possible to the following.

Tell me if the following statement is correct or not:

In HC, when recording a nightly circle, it is recorded because the camera has
rotated about the nightly axis and has maintained the same angle to that axis,
such that if you set up the camera at angle X from the axis to start with, in
12 hours it will be negative X from that axis because it is fixed to the ground
and the ground cirlces around the axis.

If you do not agree with a portion of the statement then let me know what

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ja,

You are not free of assumptions! .... (who isn't ;-)  )That is what i keep
trying to point out to you.. (you keep pointing out the aurguement of the
proof) No im pointin out a physical factthat you keep asserting as  your
conclusion that is infact true.   Look, go to the hardware store and buy a
circular sander (nightly rotation) and a orbital sander ( nightly + a orbit)
that is the difference!...Just because the nightly is visible in what we
observe annually does not negate the annual orbital (for the same reasons that
the nightly is there in the first place). (Namely, parallax of the axis of
rotation)...In a orbital sander the nightlycircles are going to be there and we
are looking at that axis but also in it is a "annual" motion as well. There is
a secondary motion that is there and must be there  because there is a second
axis of rotation...You are assuming that since you are looking at the same sky
and you see the same nightly circles then you cannot see the other.
(I am not basing anything I do on what is seen in the sky. I am modeling HC
and saying what will this or that camera configuration record, given HC
motions) SO am i we are not disagreeing about the mechaincs or even your
drawing except that you are only drawing a concluion based on one not two axis
of rotation. This is based on two false premises

1.That since you see the one you would not see the other (I am not starting
with this as an assumption, it is a conclusion given certain parameters)..NO it
is an assumed conclusion! that is false and falseafiable....... .a orbital
sander proves that wrong! (nightly) circles will be in the (annual) orbital as
well as the other axis of rotation. If you don?t assume this then you have no
argument..?
2. If you look in another direction then the axis in question you could not
see the rotation on the other axis...the nightly disproves that ...if you do
not assume this then you have no argument  I do not assume this either!!! I am
not saying that any particular dirction of setting up a camera will change
anything, I am saying that the nightly and annual motion do change the angle of
recording with respect to the annual that you are trying to record and thus
change what is recorded.

without this your conclusion based on "certain parameters" makes no sense..?
Your whole argument is based on those two basic and falsified assumptions.
Otherwise you are going to have to show us something completely different......

---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
now.

---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.

```