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

• From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:37:54 +1100

```Allen,
First I would like to clear up some terminology.
You invented "translational condition" and "rotational condition".
Are these the same as "translational/rotational movements/motions"?

I have to disagree with your statement that:
"Thre translational condition only exist on the plane to the celestial
axis not in the ecliptic axis of rotation itself!.."
* The orbit around the Sun is the translational movement, hence it
takes place in the ecliptic plane, around the Sun (but still no rotation!)
* The daily (pure) rotation is around the celestial axis, as we agree on.

Also, rotation about any given axis, will be visible and recognizable
which-ever direction you look in.

Regards,

Regner

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Thre translational condition only exist on the plane to the celestial axis
> not in the ecliptic axis of rotation itself!..There are two aspects
> here....... ......That is the whole point of the drawings. There is a
> roational condition every 24 hours over the course of a year. (see attached)
> However in the last drawings that i provided (attached) that translational
> motion to the celestial but not in the ecliptic does not have the same effect
> as the bottom drawing. The two are not equivilent views!  One is looking at
> the same rotation annauly as nightly the other is rotation on a differnt axis
> while simply looking in a different direction. The two are not equivilent and
> thereofre canont produce the same effects. You can't simply appeal to one
> then turn and focus on the other when the problems with it are pointed out.
>
>
>   Regner T
> I assure you that I am not being a pedant but I have to raise another point
> with you. It concerns this para -
>     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).
>
>   I have a problem with your usage of 'great circles'. Do you mean 'parallels
> of celestial latitude'? As I say, pedantry for its own sake, is petty. I ask
> because my knowledge is -- in the great scheme of things -- sketchy, and when
> confronted with something which conflicts with that present knowledge, I
> suffer the symptoms of analogously having the ground move under my feet. So
> basically -- do I have to learn something new?
>   Paul D
>   PS I didn't have the password for vateco!
>
>   ----- Original Message ----
> From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 3:49:17 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,
>
>         Regner
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
>
> Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >
> >  The point of the non HC drawing is simply that although that is not how
> the
> > HC folk would describe the mechanics of HC, that is the only mechanics
> that
> > would allow and are capable of replicating the nightly motion in the
> annual
> > orbital motion with no other motions perceivable and no distinction
> between
> > the two! Therefore, although no one would draw the solar system that way
> > (bottom drawing) that is the only way that you can archive hiding the
> annual
> > motion behind the nightly and making them indistinguishable from each
> other.
> > The point of the top drawing is that it cannot and will not replicated the
> > nightly without demonstrating a secondary annual motion. As I said the two
> > drawings are not equivalent. The reason the top drawing is not capable of
> > hiding the annual motion in the nightly (as the bottom can and would) is
> that
> > rotation is s function of x& y vectors around the z axis. If the two
> vectors
> > and z axis do not say constant then they cannot produce the same thing as
> >  the nighty rotation where all three variables do stay constant. You see
> the
> > slight of hand that HC uses is the failure to point out that not only is
> the
> > orbital motion of the celestial axis transnational but they imply that the
> > annual orbit itself rides the 23 degree plane  (That is why there examples
> > try to emphasize and get you to look at and only focus on the change in
> > latitude of the camera around the earth annually and how that "rides" the
> > 23.44 degree celestial plane) The top drawing depicts a camera that
> rotates
> > in one direction while looking at another. The problem is it is backwards
> > from what it would have to be it were to hid the annual motion. It rotates
> in
> > a different direction then the nightly while looking at the nightly. While
> > the bottom drawing is a camera the is looking at the nightly rotation
> while
> > in a orbit that also mimics the nightly rotation. The two drawings are not
> > equivalent and only the bottom one is and would hide and make the annual
> and
> >  nightly indistinguishable from each other.
> >
> >
> >  I attach it here again for any late comers.......
> >
> >  Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >          Dear Allen,
> >  Just a point of clarification. In the 'non HC' drawing the camera is in
> one
> > position whilst the earth rotates below it. Is this deliberate or should
> the
> > camera positions be the same as the 'HC' drawing? This would mean that the
> > ONLY difference between the two drawings is the angle of the ecliptic with
> > respect to the stars.
> >
> >  Jack
> >    ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: Allen Daves
> >  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:44 AM
> >  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
> >
> >
> >  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...........
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
>

```