[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Jack,
See this change of asthetics..It does not change the drawing or dynamics
itself but is more cosistent with itself. I thought this is how the first one
looked........but i did not see it till much latter..in any case it does not
change anything except the asthetics.... the top one is real rotaion on one
axis while looking in another direction.................. and the bottom one is
looking at the same axis as the real rotation.. that conditon is not the same
line and as Renger pointed out
"...the two axes are coincident, in the top figure they are not. You can't
change that by any tilting of the figures."........
The significance is the fact that only the bottom one will cause the
nightly rotation and the annual orbit/rotation to coincide so as not to be able
to distinguish the two. We only observe nightly star trails it does not matter
if we take them in one night or over the course of a year the same star trails
are the only thing visible. Therefore for HC to be tenable it must explain how
there are two rotations on two different axis and yet only see the same thing.
My point with the diagram is that the bottom one is the only way to do
that...The problem is that the bottom one is not HC and the top one cannot do
what the bottom one does.
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Regner,
At the risk of asking you to repeat yourself, please can you give me a short
answer why heliocentrism does not demonstrate the 2 movements as shown in
Neville's and my drawing? Up until now there only appears to have been
criticism of the geocentrist's drawings. Can you provide a drawing that
supports your case? If you have already clearly shown this then please
direct me to your explanation. In the meantime I will attempt to scroll
through the e-mails and see if I can find the relevant information.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Regner Trampedach"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
> This is pretty amazing!
> First of all, the clear and short question by Jack, could have been
> answered with 12 words: "The camera positions should be the same as in
> the HC drawing." I can't actually find an answer to Jack's question
> in the 364 words that Allen just spent.
> Second, the HC part of Allen's figure:
> http://vatceo.phys.au.dk/horde/imp/message.php?index=7668
> beautifully shows what Paul, Philip and I have been trying to say for
> quite a while now, and I just can't figure out how Allen's words can
> correspond to that figure.
> It shows the camera, fixed w.r.t. the Earth, taking pictures at
> midnight, at three different points in the orbit around the Sun.
> The figure makes it clear to me, that the camera points towards Polaris
> in all three cases, throughout the year, and also that it will do so at
> any time during the day.
> It is also clear that if the camera is mounted at another angle (still
> fixed) the camera will point at great circles around the celestial poles,
> both during the day and during the year (taking pictures every [tropical]
> solar day).
> No rotation around the ecliptic axis!
> By the way - spin and rotation is the same, I have never said anything
> to the contrary. An orbit, does however, not need to involve a rotation/
> spin, but can be purely translational - as shown in Allen's figure.
>
> Kind regards,
>
Other related posts:
