Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Jack, > > ... 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. > In HC there is only rotation around one axis - the axis of daily rotation. The orbital motion is purely translational and does not involve rotation at all. Regards, Regner > 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, > > > > > >