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. >