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

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:19:17 +1100

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,
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


Other related posts: